{"id":2256,"date":"2011-01-11T14:29:22","date_gmt":"2008-07-14T07:37:09","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-07-14T07:37:09","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2256","title":{"rendered":"MN: Inventory for a parking violation with no arrest was invalid"},"content":{"rendered":"

An inventory search of a motor vehicle was unreasonable because the police improperly impounded the vehicle of a driver who was cited but not arrested for two misdemeanor traffic offenses when the only justification for impoundment was protection of property. The driver had requested permission to make reasonable alternative arrangements for the disposition of the vehicle. State v. Gauster<\/a>, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008):<\/p>\n

While the need for the police to protect the vehicle and its contents is often present when police officers arrest a driver, in this case Gauster was not arrested and therefore never relinquished control of his vehicle and had no need to leave it unattended. Further, the impoundment and towing statutes only authorize impoundment for safekeeping when the person in control of the vehicle is taken into custody. Minn. Stat. \u00a7 169.041, subd. 4(12); Minn. Stat. \u00a7 168B.04, subd. 2. Because Gauster had at least 4 hours to make the proper arrangements for the vehicle before it could be towed, Minn. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 168B.04, subd. 2(b)(1)(i), 169.041, subd. 3, and because he was available to and capable of making his own arrangements for the vehicle, we conclude that as was the case in Goodrich<\/em>, the police had no legitimate “caretaking” purpose that justified impounding Gauster’s vehicle. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err in concluding that the impoundment was improper because “there were no circumstances then existing which justified seizure of [Gauster’s] vehicle.” <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant had just been released from prison and he admitted to having a weapon on him, so a frisk was justified. State v. Martin<\/a>, 146 Idaho 357, 195 P.3d 716 (App. 2008).*<\/p>\n

Defense counsel was ineffective for waiving on the day of trial the motion to suppress defendant’s arrest. It was apparent that defendant would have prevailed on the motion, and it undermined confidence in the state’s case. People v. Givens<\/a>, 384 Ill. App. 3d 101, 892 N.E.2d 1098 (2008),* but revd People v. Givens<\/a>, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 934 N.E.2d 470(2010)* (court of appeals should not have reached the issue).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/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-2256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2256","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=2256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2256\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}