The inventory of defendant\u2019s car was clearly an investigative search, and the lack of any paper inventory and the body camera video prove it. Defendant\u2019s cell phone wasn\u2019t logged in, the officer said, because it was taken into the station house on defendant\u2019s person. The video showed it on the car seat. Defendant\u2019s clothes weren\u2019t inventoried he said because they had no value. A gun was found under the car seat, and that was all that was mentioned. The police inventory policy generally wasn\u2019t followed. United States v. Hernandez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185590 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2017).<\/p>\n
Defendant was stopped because the officer knew that his license was suspended, having stopped him two weeks earlier for the same offense. The officer also had admittedly seen defendant other times driving but did nothing about it. The first time the officer just ticketed him and let him go home because he was half block away. This time, defendant had just pulled into a Walmart parking lot. The vehicle\u2019s registration was also expired. Under departmental policy, the vehicle was subject to tow and inventory, and the inventory was reasonable. Foster v. State<\/a>, 2017 Ark. App. 630 (Nov. 15, 2017).* <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The inventory of defendant\u2019s car was clearly an investigative search, and the lack of any paper inventory and the body camera video prove it. Defendant\u2019s cell phone wasn\u2019t logged in, the officer said, because it was taken into the station … Continue reading