ND: State didn’t even attempt to justify inventory; policy was required to be proved

The trial court did not err in finding that the impoundment and inventory was unreasonable. The vehicle was unlicensed, but the officer did not decide to inventory it until he found out defendant gave him a false identification. The state had the burden on proving validity of inventory and it failed. “The State did not provide the district court with any documents required by this directive. The State did not request a hearing during which it could have presented testimony explaining how impounding the vehicle qualified as a caretaking function, rather than an investigative purpose, nor did it provide an affidavit explaining why the officer impounded the vehicle. While the State is not required to introduce testimony, it must present evidence to demonstrate the warrantless search meets an exception to the warrant requirement. Lanctot, 1998 ND 216, ¶ 9, 587 N.W.2d 568.” State v. Pogue, 2015 ND 211, 2015 N.D. LEXIS 227 (August 25, 2015).