PA: State failed in its burden of proof on inventory policy

The state failed to put on proof of the impoundment and inventory policy, so the trial court erred in finding it was reasonable. Commonwealth v. Brinson, 2024 PA Super 293, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 536 (Dec. 9, 2024).

Defendant’s car had been shot up and left in a business parking lot with the window down. “Using a license plate reader, McCarthy tracked the Charger’s movements, confirming it was in the vicinity at the time of the shooting. … This information was obtained on the night of the incident and confirmed the Charger’s presence near the reported gunfire.” It was also owned by somebody else. It was found to be abandoned, and thus there was no standing in the car. There were also two cell phones left in the car. United States v. Bradley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221762 (W.D. La. Nov. 18, 2024).*

“Additionally, the exclusionary rule does not apply to sentencing proceedings, and evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be considered at sentencing as long as it is reliable. United States v. Jackson, 713 F. App’x 963, 968 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Lynch, 934 F.2d 1226, 1235-37 (11th Cir. 1991)).” Tolbert v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221853 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 4, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Burden of proof, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.