CA1: Inventory was shown to be investigative; suppression affirmed

“All in all, it seems inescapable that the officers seized Del Rosario’s car so that they could search it for evidence of a crime, and that they later sought to justify the search by invoking the community-caretaking exception. And while that exception might well apply even if there were also other motives for seizing the car, here the exception fits so poorly that it does not suffice to lift our eyes from the obvious conclusion that the seizure served no purpose other than facilitating a warrantless investigatory search under the guise of an impoundment inventory.” United States v. Rosario-Acosta, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 24363 (1st Cir. Aug. 3, 2020).

“The automobile exception continues to apply even after the vehicle is towed and impounded. See Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380, 382 (1984) (upholding warrantless search of a vehicle after “the element of mobility was removed” because the automobile had been impounded); …” United States v. Thomas, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 24367 (4th Cir. Aug. 3, 2020).

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Inventory. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.