{"id":2681,"date":"2009-01-01T10:28:10","date_gmt":"2008-11-17T06:47:31","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-11-17T06:47:31","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2681","title":{"rendered":"CA2: NYPD&#8217;s inventory policy satisfies <em>Wells<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>NYPD&#8217;s inventory policy satisfied <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=495&amp;invol=1\">Wells<\/a>, even though it was not fully standardized. United States v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It is true, without doubt, that the Court has stressed the need for a standardized policy. The Court has made it clear that a standardized policy is required so that inventory searches do not become &#8220;a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.&#8221; Wells, 495 U.S. at 4. The evidence adduced at the trial satisfied this standard. The unchallenged testimony of both Officer Arroyo and Sgt. Barrett established that there is a uniform standardized policy in the New York City Police Department to do a complete inventory search of the contents when a car is impounded. Arroyo testified, &#8220;[Y]ou have to do a total inventory of the vehicle. Everything has to come out.&#8221; Sgt. Barrett confirmed that it is the responsibility of the officer to conduct an inventory search of an impounded car in order &#8220;to see if there were any items that needed to be safeguarded.&#8221; This evidence was unchallenged and was credited by the district court. Accordingly, the purposes of the Supreme Court&#8217;s requirement of a standardized policy were satisfied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Officers asked for and received consent from defendant&#8217;s live-in girlfriend. He was present and not asked for consent, and <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=04-1067\">Randolph<\/a> does not require it. United States v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 397 (2d Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2681\">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-2681","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2681","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=2681"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2681\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}