Albuquerque PD policy giving officers limited discretion to tow or not tow a vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Kelly, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127394 (D. N.M. November 17, 2010):<\/p>\n
Moreover, officers cannot perform an inventory search unless they are authorized to tow a vehicle in the first place. Allowing an officer to change his or her mind will not expand the scope when an inventory search is permitted; rather, it will allow an officer to abort a plan to have a vehicle towed, which will produce less of an interference with an individual\u2019s rights, not more. It makes little sense to come up with a bright-line constitutional rule that requires a further invasion of property rights and deprivation of property \u2014 and requires towing \u2014 when practical circumstances change or no longer dictate relocation of a vehicle. The Constitution should not be in conflict with common sense. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. at 657 (\u201cThere is no war between the Constitution and common sense.\u201d). If an officer decides not to tow an individual\u2019s vehicle, then the individual\u2019s deprivation of his or her vehicle is lessened because the vehicle is seized to a lesser degree than if it were towed. Regardless, an inventory search would be permitted even if the officer were not allowed to change his mind once it was performed. \u201c[I]n forbidding uncanalized discretion to police officers conducting inventory searches, there is no reason to insist that they be conducted in a totally mechanical \u2018all or nothing\u2019 fashion.\u201d Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. at 4 (addressing whether \u201c[a] police officer may be allowed sufficient latitude to determine whether a particular container should or should not be opened in light of the nature of the search and characteristics of the container itself).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The search warrant for defendant\u2019s vehicle was properly issued for firearms, but drugs were included in the particularity clause for which there was no probable cause. That did not make seizure of the drugs invalid because they would have been found in plain view during the execution of the warrant. United States v. Walker<\/a>, 403 Fed. Appx. 803 (4th Cir. 2010) (unpublished)<\/p>\n
Probable cause existed to detain plaintiff for something; here, driving a prohibited vehicle on a public road; so his claim that he was framed for DUI to justify his arrest was rejected. A false arrest claim requires a showing that there was no probable cause. Jackson v. Parker<\/a>, 627 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading