CA5: Vehicle in hit-and-run could be seized as “instrumentality of crime”

Plaintiff’s car could be seized on an apartment building parking lot as an “instrumentality of crime” when it had been involved in a hit-and-run. (Neither party cites what the court thinks is a case in point, which it follows.) Rountree v. Lopinto, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31450 (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2020).

The officer requested consent early into the stop, and it was granted. Defendant doesn’t claim that the consent was coerced or involuntary. All reasonable. United States v. Jaqu, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183202 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2020).*

Defendant’s stop for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk was justified by Atwater even though really minor, and the search incident to it was reasonable. United States v. Harris, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183411 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2020).* (Atwater is a particularly insidious decision.)

This entry was posted in Consent, Reasonableness, Search incident, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.