E.D.Cal.: Officer wasn’t required to wait around for alternative means to tow vehicle before impoundment

“It is true that defendant made multiple requests to contact AAA to tow his truck, and he eventually suggested arranging for his father or friends, who were purportedly nearby, to move his truck to avoid impoundment. There was no telling how long it would have taken for the AAA, defendant’s father or any of his friends to arrive, or whether any of them would agree to take custody of the truck at all. The officers were not required by the Fourth Amendment to wait around to find out, given that California law does not require the consideration of such alternatives. Presumably, they had more important official duties to perform. Accordingly, the impoundment of defendant’s truck and the subsequent inventory search were permissible.” United States v. Gonzalez, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24840 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2021).

Defendant wasn’t entitled to a 38.23 exclusionary rule jury instruction where there was a separate tampering count. State v. Jaquez, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 1019 (Tex. App. – Austin Feb. 10, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Inventory. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.