{"id":4277,"date":"2011-01-11T17:16:53","date_gmt":"2010-06-11T09:45:12","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-06-11T09:45:12","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4277","title":{"rendered":"CA4: The fact vehicle inventory started where defendant reached did not show pretext"},"content":{"rendered":"

The search of defendant\u2019s car was valid as a search incident before Gant, but it was valid as an inventory. But, the inventory was not rendered invalid just because the officer went where defendant was reaching before he was arrested. That was the logical place to start and did not show it to be pretextual. United States v. Stitt<\/a>, 382 Fed. Appx. 253 (4th Cir. 2010) (unpublished):<\/p>\n

Stitt makes much of the fact that Officer Hawes testified that he believed when he began the search there was contraband in the center console of the Acura, arguing that this testimony proves that the search was for the purpose of obtaining incriminating evidence. Given the fact that Officer Hawes had observed Stitt appear to close the center console as he was being pulled over, as well as the fact that a search of the Acura incident to the arrest was permissible at the time of the arrest (i.e., before Arizona v. Gant<\/a>, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009)), it is not at all surprising that the officer would have begun the search in the console. In any event, simply because Officer Hawes might have had additional legal grounds to search the Acura apart from the inventory search does not render the inventory search invalid. See, e.g., United States v. Matthews<\/a>, 591 F.3d 230, 235 n.7 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting that an officer\u2019s suspicion that contraband may be present in the vehicle does not invalidate an otherwise lawful inventory search); United States v. Stephens<\/a>, 350 F.3d 778, 780 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that the vehicle search \u201cwas properly conducted, both as an inventory search and a search incident to arrest\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Window tint violation led to officer smelling marijuana which was probable cause. United States v. Barnett, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127287 (M.D. Fla. January 14, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4277","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4277","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4277"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4277\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}