E.D.Cal.: Tow here was to cause an inventory, and it was unreasonable

The inventory search of defendant’s car was without any justification, and it was apparent that the officers were seeking to search the car rather than inventory it. “Defendant claims that after they called their own tow, the officers said words to the effect of ‘once he gets here, we’ll be able to search the car.’” At the minimum, the police had a dual motive to tow and search. United States v. Cline, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22469 (E.D. Cal. February 18, 2011):

The Government admits that the police officers could not point to any specific criminal activity by the Defendant which gave the officers probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the car. Nor does the Court find persuasive the Government’s argument that dual motives for the inventory search existed. Specifically, the Government argues that “searching the vehicle for investigative purposes was NOT [the police officers’] primary purpose in inventorying the car. If anything, it was a secondary motive.” … The facts of this case do not support this argument. As noted above, the officers did not search Defendant’s car in accordance with state law and department procedures. The impounding and inventory of Defendant’s car cannot be explained as a “common practice” given that state law and police policies authorize the seizure and inventory of a man’s car in limited circumstances. The Government bears the burden of proving that the police officers lawfully inventoried the Defendant’s car. Its arguments and evidence fail to carry that burden. Accordingly, the evidence found in Defendant’s car must be suppressed.

The officer was parked at the jail with an OUI arrestee in his car, and defendant came to the jail, parked, and walked up and talked to him about the arrestee and being there to pick her up. The officer could smell intoxicants, and asked for his DL. It turned out the DL was suspended, and that led to defendant’s arrest. This was a voluntary encounter. State v. Trevarthen, 2011 Ohio 1013, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 848 (11th Dist. March 4, 2011).*

CI provided PC for the search of defendant’s car: (1) CI had a strong track record of 18 tips leading to 12 search warrants, and (2) he provided significant predictive details of what defendant would be doing that night that proved correct. Byrd v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 589, 2011 Va. App. LEXIS 78 (February 1, 2011).*