{"id":3440,"date":"2010-05-24T12:48:21","date_gmt":"2009-10-14T06:29:07","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-10-14T06:29:07","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3440","title":{"rendered":"MA: Locked bank bag not subject to inventory at station house under policy"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A locked bank bag in a juvenile&#8217;s possession was not properly subject to an inventory at the station house because the inventory policy did not deal with it. <a href=\"http:\/\/weblinks.westlaw.com\/result\/default.aspx?action=Search&amp;cnt=DOC&amp;db=MA%2DORSLIP&amp;eq=search&amp;fmqv=c&amp;fn=%5Ftop&amp;method=TNC&amp;n=3&amp;origin=Search&amp;query=TO%28ALLAPP+ALLAPPRS%29&amp;rlt=CLID%5FQRYRLT99107272461410&amp;rltdb=CLID%5FDB89825262461410&amp;rlti=1&amp;rp=%2Fsearch%2Fdefault%2Ewl&amp;rs=MAOR1%2E0&amp;service=Search&amp;sp=MassOF%2D1001&amp;srch=TRUE&amp;ss=CNT&amp;sskey=CLID%5FSSSA72841262461410&amp;vr=1%2E0\">Commonwealth v. Vanya V.<\/a>, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 370, 914 N.E.2d 339 (2009):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Here, the policy was insufficiently precise in two respects. First, it did not spell out what to do with locked containers as opposed to those that are simply closed. As a subset of this, the policy also did not spell out what should be done with a locked container for which the officers have the key and a locked container for which they do not. Second, accepting the Commonwealth&#8217;s position that the bank bag was &#8220;opened&#8221; pursuant to the policy requires stretching the meaning of &#8220;open&#8221; to a degree that would allow officers to choose among a limitless range of options, including (as here) destruction.<\/p>\n<p>We have found no case that would permit an officer to break into or damage a locked container in order to conduct an inventory search. The purpose of an inventory is to protect the property of the owner and to protect officers from claims by the owner that the property was damaged. Permitting an officer to destroy or break into a locked container runs counter to the very purpose of the inventory exception. See Tennessee v. Cabage, 649 S.W.2d 589, 592 (Tenn. 1983). Moreover, breaking into the locked bank bag served no noninvestigatory purpose. There is no suggestion that the bag presented an immediate danger that required that it be opened immediately to protect public safety.<\/p>\n<p>We conclude that the contents of the locked bank bag were not obtained as a result of a legitimate inventory search and, therefore, should have been suppressed. Suppression of the contents of the locked bank bag in turn requires that the adjudications based on the drug charges be reversed, there being no other evidence to support those charges. That being the case, whether the patfrisk or the search incident to arrest were valid are questions we need not, and do not, reach. Neither resulted in the discovery of evidence to support any of the adjudications.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Under the totality of circumstances, the defendant&#8217;s van was believed by the police to be involved in a shooting incident, and that justified a stop. A minor error in the description (flag on mirror and not in back) was not enough to show a lack of RS. <a href=\"http:\/\/weblinks.westlaw.com\/result\/default.aspx?action=Search&amp;cnt=DOC&amp;db=MA%2DORSLIP&amp;eq=search&amp;fmqv=c&amp;fn=%5Ftop&amp;method=TNC&amp;n=1&amp;origin=Search&amp;query=TO%28ALLSCT+ALLSCTRS+ALLSCTOJ%29&amp;rlt=CLID%5FQRYRLT7954451961410&amp;rltdb=CLID%5FDB623151961410&amp;rlti=1&amp;rp=%2Fsearch%2Fdefault%2Ewl&amp;rs=MAOR1%2E0&amp;service=Search&amp;sp=MassOF%2D1001&amp;srch=TRUE&amp;ss=CNT&amp;sskey=CLID%5FSSSA4723151961410&amp;sv=Split&amp;vr=1%2E0\">Commonwealth v. Lopes<\/a>, 455 Mass. 147, 914 N.E.2d 78 (2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3440\">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-3440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3440","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=3440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}