Category Archives: Inventory

E.D.Cal.: Inventory procedures not followed, and testimony suggested investigative motive, so suppressed

The inventory did not comply with CHP procedures, and it appears from the officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing that it really had an investigatory purpose. United States v. Verduzo-Verduzco, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144696 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018):

Posted in Inventory | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Inventory procedures not followed, and testimony suggested investigative motive, so suppressed

N.D.Iowa: Inventory appears only a pretext for criminal search

Officer’s failure to follow inventory policy here created the strong inference the inventory was really a pretext for a criminal search, and the inventory is suppressed. United States v. Davis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137083 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 14, 2018) … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: Inventory appears only a pretext for criminal search

OR: There was no PC for an administrative seizure of def’s car

The seizure of defendant’s car was without probable cause for an administrative seizure. While her insurance card did not fully comply with the statute, it was fair on its face that it was her and for her cars. State v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative search, Inevitable discovery, Inventory | Comments Off on OR: There was no PC for an administrative seizure of def’s car

UT: Photographing items for inventory rather than listing them is reasonable

Photographing the things seen in the inventory rather than listing them all is reasonable. Here, defendant also mounted a “vigorous” defense to the validity of the inventory in other respects, but they all fail. His backpack was searched in the … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on UT: Photographing items for inventory rather than listing them is reasonable

IA adopts tighter inventory search standard under state const. and rejects SCOTUS cases

Iowa declines to follow SCOTUS cases on the Fourth Amendment in determining validity of inventory searches under the state constitution. The asserted justifications for inventory under the Fourth Amendment hold no weight on closer examination, and vehicle owners should get … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory, State constitution | Comments Off on IA adopts tighter inventory search standard under state const. and rejects SCOTUS cases

M.D.Ga.: Standardized procedure for inventory not shown, and it is suppressed

The government failed to prove a standardized inventory procedure in the local police department. And, the inventory appeared to be an investigative search, not a legitimate inventory, so it is suppressed. United States v. Dennis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99472 … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: Standardized procedure for inventory not shown, and it is suppressed

CA9: Search of car could not be sustained as inventory since there was an admitted-evidence gathering motive

The inventory here was to conduct a criminal search of the car, and it is suppressed. Officers timed the arrest when defendant was in the car [allegedly] to minimize safety concerns. They admittedly were searching for criminal evidence, and not … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory | Comments Off on CA9: Search of car could not be sustained as inventory since there was an admitted-evidence gathering motive

E.D.N.Y.: Def’s search incident of his backpack for fraudulent use of a Metrocard was valid at least on GFE and inevitable discovery

Defendant was stopped for using a school student’s Metrocard to get on the NYC subway because he looked and was a so older. His backpacked was removed, and he was handcuffed. His backpack was searched incident to his arrest. The … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Inevitable discovery, Inventory, Search incident | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Def’s search incident of his backpack for fraudulent use of a Metrocard was valid at least on GFE and inevitable discovery

CO: Def was ticketed, but car was impounded without reasonable justification; suppressed

Defendant was issued a citation for a traffic offense, and then the officers decided to impound his car. There was no justification for the impoundment, and the search of the vehicle is suppressed. People v. Brown, 2018 CO 27, 2018 … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory | Comments Off on CO: Def was ticketed, but car was impounded without reasonable justification; suppressed

TX1: Search incident and inventory invalid for failing to signal; as to inventory, the inventorying officer is a necessary witness

A drug officer called a patrol officer to stop defendant. After he failed to promptly signal a turn, he was stopped, handcuffed, and his car was searched. “The search of Appellant’s vehicle incident to his arrest for failing to signal … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, Inventory, Search incident | Comments Off on TX1: Search incident and inventory invalid for failing to signal; as to inventory, the inventorying officer is a necessary witness

D.Me.: SW didn’t authorize search of visitor’s cars arriving after search started

The search warrant in this case did not authorize a search of a vehicle that arrived at the premises during the search. There was, however, independent probable cause for a search of the vehicle under the automobile exception. United States … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory, Scope of search | Comments Off on D.Me.: SW didn’t authorize search of visitor’s cars arriving after search started

S.D.Fla.: Former lawyer could not sue Disciplinary Counsel in bankruptcy after already losing in another similar case

Plaintiff is a former lawyer who sued the Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleging Fourth Amendment violations from seizure of his office files. After losing that case, he attempted to relitigate the same issue through bankruptcy court. He is collateral … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Former lawyer could not sue Disciplinary Counsel in bankruptcy after already losing in another similar case

NJ: Def was interrogated in DA’s office; inventory of her purse after lawyering up was unreasonable

Defendant was detained and being interviewed at the local DA’s office. She’d rummaged in her purse without restriction, and it was open on the table. She looked at her cell phone for the time and commented that she had to … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory | Comments Off on NJ: Def was interrogated in DA’s office; inventory of her purse after lawyering up was unreasonable

VI: Govt couldn’t rely on inventory to justify search when the vehicle wasn’t impounded

Officer’s knowledge that defendant possessed a firearm was not reasonable suspicion in itself because one could possess a firearm in the VI, albeit with a license. When officers observed bullet holes in the car and defendant was nervous and evasive, … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Inventory | Comments Off on VI: Govt couldn’t rely on inventory to justify search when the vehicle wasn’t impounded

D.Nev.: UPS employee conducted private search and allowing police to photograph contents did exceed private search

A UPS employee suspected contraband in a package shipped from Las Vegas to Florida, and a supervisor then opened. While it was open, police came and photographed it, and this did not exceed the private search. United States v. Washington, … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory, Private search | Comments Off on D.Nev.: UPS employee conducted private search and allowing police to photograph contents did exceed private search

E.D.Mich.: Franks challenge fails because there still would be PC

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails because, even accepting it as true, there’s still probable cause. United States v. Barclay, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12061 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 2018).* “Probable cause ‘is not a high bar.’ Kaley v. United States, 134 … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Inventory | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Franks challenge fails because there still would be PC

OH: A policy to take arrestee’s purse to jail with her doesn’t grant power to inventory it

“This case addresses whether a law-enforcement agency’s policy that an arrestee’s personal effects must accompany the arrestee to jail can, on its own, justify the warrantless retrieval of an arrestee’s personal effects from a location that is protected under the … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory | Comments Off on OH: A policy to take arrestee’s purse to jail with her doesn’t grant power to inventory it

D.N.M.: Inventory was reasonable on the totality, so officers’ actual intent doesn’t matter

Defendant was arrested at someone else’s home, and he had a bag. The homeowner wouldn’t take responsibility for the bag, so it went with defendant, and its inventory was reasonable on the totality. “Thus, whether or not the Officers’ testimony … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Inventory | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Inventory was reasonable on the totality, so officers’ actual intent doesn’t matter

D.S.D.: General description of a handyman’s tools as “miscellaneous tools” did not make the inventory “defective”

General description of a handyman’s tools as “miscellaneous tools” did not make the inventory “defective.” United States v. Bruce, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7387 (D.S.D. Jan 17, 2018). “Although the affidavit in the instant case could have provided more information … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Inventory, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on D.S.D.: General description of a handyman’s tools as “miscellaneous tools” did not make the inventory “defective”

D.Neb.: Minor mistakes on inventory paperwork don’t make the inventory unreasonable

The officer’s minor errors on the paperwork for the inventory don’t show that was pretextual for a criminal search or otherwise unreasonable. United States v. Lillard, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6613 (D. Neb. Jan. 16, 2018) (wrong vehicle model, failing … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Inventory | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Minor mistakes on inventory paperwork don’t make the inventory unreasonable