Although the defendant was not renting a motel room, he was staying there, and had his clothes and stuff there; therefore, he had standing. He was unlawfully detained when he consented, and that vitiated consent. State v. Woods, 311 Ga. App. 577, 716 S.E.2d 622 (2011)* [Ga.Ct.App. cases are only on LexisOne, but this case doesn’t show].<\/p>\n
Consent to \u201clook in\u201d or \u201cinspect\u201d the interior of a car is consent to search under the case law. United States v. Guerrero, 806 F. Supp. 2d 992 (S.D. Tex. 2011).*<\/p>\n
The written inventory policy of the North Las Vegas PD was not introduced, but it was testified to orally, and there was no serious cross-examination about it. Therefore, the court finds that the policy was established. Moreover, when the defendant got out of the vehicle that was being impounded, he asked to take two computers, which he was permitted to do, but the officer also saw a credit card encoding device and far too many gift cards for a normal person to have, and that was probable cause to believe that credit card theft was in the offing. United States v. Berhe, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98360 (D. Nev. June 10, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading