{"id":3710,"date":"2010-01-06T10:10:47","date_gmt":"2010-01-06T08:10:05","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-06T08:10:05","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3710","title":{"rendered":"CA4: Refresher on inventory search: Closed containers may be entered even though policy does not specify"},"content":{"rendered":"

In light of Gant<\/a> sending police and courts back to the automobile exception or inventory search, the Fourth Circuit did a slight refresher on the law of inventory search of a closed container in a car. The inventory policy did not say that closed containers could be searched, but it is implicit. United States v. Matthews<\/a>, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 28764 (4th Cir. December 31, 2009):<\/p>\n

n.7 “[a]n officer’s suspicion that contraband may be present [in the vehicle] does not invalidate an otherwise lawful inventory search.” United States v. Cox, No. 90-5853, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 2229, 1992 WL 29136, at *3 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 1992); see also United States v. Lewis, 3 F.3d 252, 254 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Cecala, No. 99-4049, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 384, 2000 WL 18948, at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 12, 2000).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A police department’s policy on inventory searches does not have to specifically use the phrase “closed containers” to permit the search and seizure of such items. See, e.g., United States v. Richardson, 121 F.3d 1051, 1055-56 (7th Cir. 1997); Thompson, 29 F.3d at 66; United States v. Wilson, 938 F.2d 785, 789-90 (7th Cir. 1991). In Thompson, for example, the Second Circuit examined whether certain inventory search regulations provided standardized criteria as to the opening of closed containers. The regulations stated, in relevant part, “A member of the Department who impounds any motor vehicle shall inventory the contents of the vehicle and record the results. … It is not necessary to enter locked portions of any vehicle to conduct an inventory search when keys to enter are not available.” 29 F.3d at 66. The court determined that the regulations need not “specifically mention the term ‘closed containers'” to regulate the opening of such containers. Id. Instead, the court found that “[t]he terms ‘contents’ and ‘locked portions’ in the regulations provide sufficient elucidation to satisfy the constitutional requirements for an inventory search of a closed container when keys are available.” Id.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-3710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3710","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=3710"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3710\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}