Too detailed an inventory not unreasonable. \u201cLynch offers no argument to suggest that his vehicle was not properly subject to the tow policy and its accompanying inventory search. Instead, Lynch appears to take it issue with the manner in which Officer Wolk conducted the inventory search. More specifically, Lynch appears to contend that Officer Wolk’s failure to inventory every item in the vehicle somehow transformed the legal and permissible inventory search to an unlawful, warrantless investigatory search. The Court finds no merit in this contention.\u201d United States v. Lynch, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207809 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 15, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was conflicting evidence, but it’s not clear there wasn\u2019t probable cause for arrest. Thus, qualified immunity. Wadkins v. Klingshirn, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28240 (6th Cir. Sep. 14, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Respondent showed no reasonable expectation of privacy in a video on someone else\u2019s SD card. State v. Catherine, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1815 (La. App. 1 Cir Sep. 14, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Too detailed an inventory not unreasonable. \u201cLynch offers no argument to suggest that his vehicle was not properly subject to the tow policy and its accompanying inventory search. Instead, Lynch appears to take it issue with the manner in which … Continue reading