{"id":1651,"date":"2008-08-31T20:35:58","date_gmt":"2008-01-01T11:52:15","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-01-01T11:52:15","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1651","title":{"rendered":"Crash scene inventory was valid; driver incapacitated"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Idaho&#8217;s crash scene inventory of defendant&#8217;s car was valid; she was incapacitated. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisone.com\/lx1\/caselaw\/freecaselaw?searchType=citation&amp;fclSearch=2007+U.S.+App.+LEXIS+29958+&amp;action=FCLSearchCaseByCitation&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;format=CITE&amp;pageNumber=1&amp;sourceID=&amp;citation=2007+U.S.+App.+LEXIS+29958+&amp;searchTerm=\">United States v. Howell<\/a>, 261 Fed. Appx. 55 (9th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The Idaho Impound Procedure states in relevant part that &#8220;[a]t a crash scene where no probable cause exists that a vehicle was involved in a crime and the vehicle must be towed,&#8221; and the &#8220;owner\/operator is incapacitated,&#8221; state troopers are to &#8220;complete the EH 06 05-01 Towed\/Abandoned Vehicle Inventory\/Notice form, listing every item that can be identified as belonging with the vehicle.&#8221; Trooper Olsen, the officer who responded to Howell&#8217;s crash scene, did just this. Howell had already been transferred to the hospital, and so Trooper Olsen proceeded with the mandated inventory of the vehicle&#8217;s contents.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Claim of racial animus in conducting searches of plaintiff&#8217;s business is a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, not a Fourth Amendment claim. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisone.com\/lx1\/caselaw\/freecaselaw?searchType=citation&amp;fclSearch=2007+U.S.+App.+LEXIS+29979&amp;action=FCLSearchCaseByCitation&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;format=CITE&amp;pageNumber=1&amp;sourceID=&amp;citation=2007+U.S.+App.+LEXIS+29979&amp;searchTerm=\">Richards v. City of Los Angeles<\/a>, 261 Fed. Appx. 63 (9th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Consistent with <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=U20005\"><em>Whren v. United States<\/em><\/a>, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996), we have consistently refused to analyze impermissible racial motivations as violations of the Fourth Amendment. An illegitimate subjective motivation of a police officer will not invalidate an &#8220;objectively justifiable&#8221; seizure. <em>Whren<\/em>, 517 U.S. at 812; see also <em>United States v. Cervantes<\/em>, 219 F.3d 882, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by <em>Brigham City v. Stuart<\/em>, 547 U.S. 398, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2006). As the district court recognized, where the claim is that a facially neutral law is being applied differently on the basis of race, the appropriate analysis is under the Equal Protection Clause. Richards&#8217; claim for racial harassment is therefore properly addressed with his equal protection claim, where he also alleges that the raids of his establishment and his arrests were motivated by racial animus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&#8220;[T]he district court did not clearly err when it found that his intent to withdraw consent to search the apartment was not objectively clear and unequivocal when it was communicated to officers who had no reason to know that he had granted such consent.&#8221; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisone.com\/lx1\/caselaw\/freecaselaw?searchType=citation&amp;fclSearch=2007+U.S.+App.+LEXIS+30023+&amp;action=FCLSearchCaseByCitation&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;format=CITE&amp;pageNumber=1&amp;sourceID=&amp;citation=2007+U.S.+App.+LEXIS+30023+&amp;searchTerm=\">United States v. Hughes<\/a>, 273 Fed. Appx. 587 (9th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1651\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1651","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1651"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1651\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}