Inventory policy that allows the vehicle to go with somebody \u201cimmediately available,\u201d not otherwise defined, does not require the police to allow somebody to be called and the police wait for that person to show up. The person essentially has to be there already. If the inventory is conducted in \u201cgood faith,\u201d that\u2019s enough. United States v. Reyes-Vencomo, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (D. N.M. 2012):<\/p>\n
The officers initiated the search in compliance with standardized police procedures and the requirement that the officers make a post-search notation regarding the decision to search adds little to the protections that the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent seeks to impose. The Fourth Amendment is satisfied so long as an officer conducts an inventory search in good faith. See United States v. Battle, 370 F.App’x at 430 (citing Colorado v. Bertine<\/a>, 479 U.S. at 374). Holfelder and Ortega conducted an orderly inventory search, documenting and photographing the items in the vehicle as they went, and were not “general[ly] rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.” United States v. Martinez, 512 F.3d at 1274. Holfelder explained that he understood the policy’s purpose to be to protect the department and the driver’s property, and nothing indicates that he was acting in bad faith. See United States v. Maraga, 76 F.App’x at 228 (“An impoundment must either be supported by probable cause, or be consistent with the police role as ‘caretaker’ of the streets and completely unrelated to an ongoing criminal investigation.”); United States v. Lugo, 978 F.2d at 636 (“When the police acquire temporary custody of a vehicle, a warrantless inventory search of the vehicle does not offend Fourth Amendment principles so long as the search is made pursuant to ‘standard police procedures’ and for the purpose of ‘protecting the car and its contents.'”). Failing to make a notation in the police report regarding the tow decision was a minor deviation from procedure, and an understandable one given the circumstances, and does not render the inventory search invalid.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[I had to go read these cases on good faith, and both appear to just be throw-away lines as to what the government’s burden of proof is:<\/p>\n
Battle: “Rather, he acted in good faith as he undertook to identify, secure and protect valuable property.”<\/p>\n
Bertine<\/a>: “We conclude that here, as in Lafayette, reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment, even though courts might as a matter of hindsight be able to devise equally reasonable rules requiring a different procedure.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So, don’t see there being a “good faith exception” to inventory searches. Good faith inventory and not a rummaging is something that the government has to prove in every case.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading