M.D.Ala.: Under Evans, DV OP justified stop that led to inventory even though it had unknowingly been set aside

The officer reasonably relied on a report from dispatch that defendant had a DV order of protection against him by his wife. After the stop and the inventory for towing his car, his estranged wife showed up with a copy of an order setting the OP aside. Still, the inventory was valid under Arizona v. Evans. United States v. Gilreath, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155429 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 29, 2024), adopting, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156481 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 1, 2024).

Defendant granted consent to search his car. “Mr. Cardiel initially stated that there may be meth in the car. Then, when the deputy asked him whether there was anything else illegal in the car, Mr. Cardiel acted guiltily when he hesitated in responding, stared at the steering wheel, and then said, ‘There shouldn’t be.’ This conduct and his statements were sufficient to support probable cause for the officer to search the car.” United States v. Medina-Flores, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22005 (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024).*

Defendant’s cell phone was searched at the border two days after it was seized. It was moved from Port Canaveral to Tampa for the search, but that did not make it an extended border search. United States v. Falzone, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156587 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2024).

This entry was posted in Border search, Cell phones, Consent, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.