The impoundment of defendant\u2019s car on the property of another was reasonable. Officers were not required to wait for defendant to locate somebody to retrieve the car, and they didn\u2019t have to leave it to inconvenience the property owner. United States v. Cornett, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100536 (E.D. N.C. May 8, 2020), adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99902 (E.D. N.C. June 8, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The district court erred in finding implied consent without proper findings of fact and conclusions of law. The officers never testified that they asked for consent and the alleged consenter didn\u2019t answer. She stepped aside at the door, and they took that as implied consent. United States v. Staggers<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18085 (5th Cir. June 9, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The impoundment of defendant\u2019s car on the property of another was reasonable. Officers were not required to wait for defendant to locate somebody to retrieve the car, and they didn\u2019t have to leave it to inconvenience the property owner. United … Continue reading