A safe in a vehicle that was lawfully impounded and subject to towing and inventory could be forcibly opened at the resting place of the vehicle. United States v. Falsey, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145230 (M.D. Fla. October 9, 2012):<\/p>\n
Third, the motion to suppress objects that, because the vehicle was towed to the impoundment facility at Joe’s Towing and because the vehicle resided \u2014 safe and sound \u2014 at Joe’s Towing before the visit by Sgt. Trebino and the three detectives to complete the inventory search (by forcing open the safe in the trunk of the vehicle), the inventory search that revealed the narcotics was entirely unnecessary and outside the permitted purposes of an inventory. However, the applicable law permits the search of a container, package, or compartment within an impounded vehicle if the police department’s regulations require the search, and the Largo police department’s regulations require the search of a container, package, or compartment in an impounded vehicle. Falsey’s argument \u2014 that the vehicle was safely situated at Joe’s Towing and that a search of the safe in the trunk was unnecessary \u2014 is absolutely wrong. The Largo police department’s regulations govern the inventory search and (wisely) require the inspection of a container, package, or compartment. Whether during the second inventory the police’s failing to search the safe in the trunk of the vehicle would have been an acceptable risk to the police is a superfluous question; if the impoundment was proper, the inventory was proper. 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, \u00a7 7.4(a).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading