Describing a lot of stuff in defendant\u2019s car as \u201ctools\u201d and \u201cmisc items\u201d was good enough. \u201cOfficer Jas also testified that having the inventory search recorded in his BWC served to verify the accuracy of his paperwork. Having considered Officer Jas’ credible testimony, the undersigned finds that he adequately complied with MBPD SOP #133 and that the minor shortcomings argued by Defendant did not transform the inventory search into an investigatory one. Wells, 495 U.S. at 4; Williams, 936 F.2d at 1248.\u201d United States v. Goldammer, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58571 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2019).<\/p>\n
Defendants get qualified immunity: \u201cGiven that defendants could have reasonably believed their actions were authorized under Summers, they are also entitled to qualified immunity on Gillen’s analogous state law claims.\u201d Gillen v. Town of Hayden<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9955 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Describing a lot of stuff in defendant\u2019s car as \u201ctools\u201d and \u201cmisc items\u201d was good enough. \u201cOfficer Jas also testified that having the inventory search recorded in his BWC served to verify the accuracy of his paperwork. Having considered Officer … Continue reading