D.N.M.: Community caretaking seizure of car off private property unreasonable

The impoundment of the car defendant was driving (although not his, he has standing) was unjustified. It was on private property and not impeding any traffic. The community caretaking function did not justify it. There was no standardized impoundment policy, written or unwritten, shown to justify it. In addition, the affidavit search warrant for his car had three false statements that were material to the probable cause finding–without it there isn’t any. United States v. Arvizo, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70508 (D.N.M. Apr. 18, 2022).

A 911 call to the police that defendant was waving a gun was reasonable suspicion when officers saw him. The officer could see a handgun in defendant’s hotel room when the door was opened and the officer was still outside. “To the extent that the Defendant argues that the officers and Mr. Wolever concocted a concern of danger in order to access Defendant’s motel room, he asks this court to reevaluate the credibility of the witnesses and to reweigh the evidence, matters which are reserved for the trial court as the trier of fact.” State v. McDowell, 2022 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 167 (Apr. 14, 2022).*

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy just from using Freenet, hoping that one’s IP information would not be disclosed. Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, 2 F.4th 330 (4th Cir. 2021), on Baltimore’s city-wide aerial surveillance and Carpenter provide no relief. United States v. Pobre, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70204 (D.Md. Apr. 15, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Community caretaking function, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.