UT: Inventory policy needs somehow to be in evidence to challenge scope of search

If you’re challenging whether the officer exceeded an inventory policy, it needs to be in evidence. Here there was only testimony, and the court could rely on that. Here, the claim was that inventorying a backpack in an impounded car was unreasonable, but it was found within policy. State v. Leatham, 2025 Utah App. LEXIS 210 (Dec. 26, 2025).

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. “… Defendant points to the fact that APD deleted the audio recording of the controlled buy and no longer has the buy money as proof that the controlled buy never happened, and that the statements in the affidavit identifying him are false. … His argument is unpersuasive. First, Defendant does not claim the statements describing the controlled buy were false or misleading. He does not, for instance, challenge the statements that CS-1 received APD funds for the controlled buy, or that police watched CS-1 walk up to the Kelly Avenue house, enter, and leave with fentanyl. … He only challenges the statement detailing what CS-1 told police after the controlled buy. Therefore, Defendant has not satisfied his burden to make a substantial preliminary showing that the controlled buy never happened. Rather, the Government has proven, to the satisfaction of the Court, that the controlled buy occurred.” United States v. Portis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 263643 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 22, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Inventory, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.