CA4: Search of unlocked van with door ajar left overnight on bank parking lot with visible assault rifle was reasonable under community caretaking function

A bank employee saw a van parked on the bank’s lot that had been there overnight. Officers responded and saw an assault rifle in the passenger compartment. “Around 12:30 [p.m.], without knocking or announcing their presence, Lambert and Wagner pulled the handle on the slightly ajar side door to the back of the van. The door suddenly opened. Startled, the officers drew their guns. They did not see anyone inside the van but noticed more gun cases. But combined with what they had seen in the front seat, the officers felt these additional guns in an abandoned, and unsecure, vehicle presented a public safety concern.” The entry into the van was justified under the community caretaking function. United States v. Treisman, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15831 (4th Cir. June 23, 2023).

“For the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the trooper was permitted to ask Duty if there were drugs in his vehicle as long as the trooper possessed reasonable suspicion of criminality. We further conclude that the trooper did, in fact, possess reasonable suspicion of criminality. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Duty’s motion to suppress.” Duty v. State, 2023 Alas. App. LEXIS 75 (June 23, 2023).*

The totality of circumstances shows that defendant consented to the officer’s search for packages in his place that resulted in firearm parts being found. United States v. Williams, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108658 (D.V.I. June 23, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Community caretaking function, Consent, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.