D.Mass.: Owner of vehicle not in it can’t challenge stop, but he can the inventory which was unreasonable

The owner of a vehicle who was not driving or in it when it was stopped has no standing to challenge the stop as opposed to an inventory search. “After considering, as it must, ‘all the facts and circumstances’ of this case, the Court has concluded that the purported inventory search was unreasonable and ultimately unconstitutional. See Coccia, 446 F.3d at 239 (emphasis added). While perhaps none of the Court’s stated reasons would be independently sufficient to render the purported inventory search unlawful, the Court finds that the unique constellation of facts present here, taken together, constituted a violation of Vick’s Fourth Amendment rights that requires suppressing the fruits of the purported inventory search.” United States v. Vick, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115419 (D. Mass. July 1, 2024).

“The district court correctly denied qualified immunity on the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim because, construing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, we conclude that every reasonable officer in Carroll’s position would have recognized that shooting and killing Lopez constituted excessive force. [¶] On July 21, 2018, Officers Thranum and Carroll approached Lopez’s car which was stopped at an intersection without its headlights on. Officer Thranum pulled up behind Lopez’s car, while Officer Carroll, in another cruiser, pulled up on the passenger side of Lopez’s car. Lopez failed to comply with Officer Thranum’s request for his keys, and instead reached for his gear shift. Officer Carroll pointed a taser at Lopez, thrust his arm into the open window and yelled commands for Lopez not to put the car in drive. Rather than comply, Lopez slowly reversed his car and collided into Thranum’s police vehicle right behind him. Officer Carroll was knocked back, quickly regained his footing, and fired nine shots through Lopez’s passenger window, killing him. Meanwhile, Officer Thranum had retreated to her car, uninjured.” Lopez v. City of Mesa, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15981 (9th Cir. July 1, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Inventory, Qualified immunity, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.