DEA inventory policy did not apply to luggage that the DEA unlawfully seized. Here, there was somebody readily available to take custody of the luggage, and the DEA wouldn\u2019t let them because they wanted to inventory. United States v. Papraniku, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46343 (E.D. N.Y. March 29, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Here, the government relies heavily on the DEA policy governing inventory searches. The sole consideration mentioned in the policy states that “[i]nventory searches are made to identify items of value in order to protect DEA personnel from claims of theft or loss of property that enters DEA custody.” (Gov’t Ex. GX-2.) The policy includes a provision allowing DEA personnel to conduct inventory searches of “all containers, whether locked or unlocked, that are lawfully seized for safekeeping.” (Id.) The policy, however, is silent on how DEA personnel are instructed to act when there is an individual present who can take control of the property. Indeed, it is unclear to the court how the concerns addressed by the policy \u2014 the fear that DEA personnel will be subject to claims of theft or loss \u2013 are implicated in cases such as this when there has been demonstrated no right to search the vehicle or for law enforcement to seize the property at all. Thus, given the DEA’s policy’s stated aim of protecting DEA personnel from claims of theft or loss, the court finds that it does not apply to circumstances where, as here, law enforcement is not lawfully in possession of the property.<\/p>\n
In this regard, the court finds instructive the reasoning employed by the district court in United States v. Goodrich<\/a>, 183 F. Supp. 2d 135, 140-41 (D. Mass. 2001) — the only case, as far as the court is aware, where the police decided to conduct an inventory search despite the presence of an individual who could take possession of the property. In Goodrich, the defendant was arrested pursuant to outstanding arrest warrants. The police had followed defendant to a parking lot adjacent to a building where the police knew defendant’s wife worked. The defendant legally parked the car and entered the building. The defendant was subsequently arrested inside the building. At the evidentiary hearing, the police officer testified that while defendant was being arrested, his wife provided him with the keys to the car. He subsequently performed an “inventory search” of the car that revealed a closed duffel bag inside the unlocked trunk. Although the officers had initially directed the defendant’s wife to stay inside the building during the search, at some point, she was called out to the parking lot and informed that the car would be towed. The officers removed the duffel bag and waited for the tow truck to arrive. The police entrusted the defendant’s wife to inform her sister-in-law, the car’s registered owner, that the vehicle had been impounded. Id. at 137-38. After the car had been towed, the officers opened the duffel bag and found a handgun.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading