Inventory policy does not have to be written to be standardized. Here, it was reasonable to impound the vehicle where the arrest was at a Taco Bell drive thru and then conduct this inventory. The police would be negligent not to. United States v. Beckford, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36338 (N.D. Ga. February 2, 2010)*:<\/p>\n
The government’s evidence with respect to the impound policy was thin but sufficient. Under the circumstances, any policy that did not allow for law enforcement to take custody of the Avalanche would have been illogical and dangerous. It would have been unreasonable, if not negligent, for the agents to leave the Avalanche unattended in the drive-thru lane or the private parking lot of the Taco Bell restaurant, particularly since there was reason to believe it might contain weapons and\/or currency. …<\/p>\n
That the search of the Avalanche began while it was still at the Taco Bell (for the purpose of ensuring officer safety) does not provide a basis for suppression of evidence. While the government characterizes the search at the Taco Bell as a “protective sweep,” I find that the initial search at the Taco Bell is more properly characterized as part of the inventory search, in that one of the justifications of an inventory search is to protect officers from potential danger. Bertine, 479 U.S. at 372 (finding that after lawfully taking custody of a vehicle, law enforcement officers may conduct an inventory search of that vehicle in order to: (1) protect the owner’s property while it is in police custody; (2) protect the police from claims of lost or stolen property; and (3) “to guard the police from danger”) (emphasis provided). Whether characterized as a protective sweep or inventory search, it was reasonable for the agents to search the bed of the vehicle before they drove it away from the Taco Bell in order to ensure that no one was hiding in it who could pose a danger to them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading