Impoundment of defendant\u2019s vehicle was reasonable and under standardized procedure, even though he was present. \u201cI conclude Directive 406.3\/2.3.4 was a reasonable standardized procedure. The officers’ decision to enforce Directive 406.2\/2.3.4 and impound the vehicle, even though the lawful owner was present, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Because the officers legally impounded the vehicle, the search incident to the impoundment did not violate the Fourth Amendment for the reasons stated in my previous opinion.\u201d United States v. Boxx, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29589 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 17, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The government disclosed its reliance on the collective knowledge doctrine before the motion to suppress was resolved. Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for allegedly withholding it, which the court doesn\u2019t find it did, is denied. United States v. Tuschoff, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29515 (D. Idaho Feb. 16, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Impoundment of defendant\u2019s vehicle was reasonable and under standardized procedure, even though he was present. \u201cI conclude Directive 406.3\/2.3.4 was a reasonable standardized procedure. The officers’ decision to enforce Directive 406.2\/2.3.4 and impound the vehicle, even though the lawful owner … Continue reading