Defendant fled from the car when it was stopped. Its inventory was valid. While the officer couldn\u2019t testify to all the main purposes of an inventory, he got \u201cdocumenting evidence\u201d right [which to me means nothing], the inventory was in good faith and not solely for investigation, so it\u2019s valid. United States v. Detloff, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181030 (E.D. Mich. December 30, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Like the officers in Hockenberry, Officer Edgar’s testimony reflects “a less than ideal understanding” of the purposes of an inventory search. While he was able to identify some of the main goals of an inventory search, such as safekeeping of valuable items, he also stated that one of the purposes of an inventory search is to document evidence. <\/p>\n
Nevertheless, his testimony establishes that he followed the main parameters of the City of Novi’s policy by searching the van and documenting the items found in the van on his written report. <\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
The Court also finds that Officer Edgar was not acting in bad faith or for sole purpose of investigation.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, this Court concludes that Officer Edgar conducted a valid inventory search of the van and the Court shall deny Detloff’s motion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Also, the search of his apartment was by consent. United States v. Detloff, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181029 (E.D. Mich. December 30, 2013)*:<\/p>\n
Here, the characteristics of Detloff weigh in favor of the conclusion that the consent to search his apartment was voluntary. Detloff is a mature adult who has had prior contact with the legal system. Detloff testified that he has been arrested before and has prior experience with consent-to-search forms. Detloff’s age, intelligence, and experience indicate the ability to freely consent to a search.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading