There was an inventory policy, but the police were unfamiliar with it and didn\u2019t follow it. \u201c[T]he Court finds that the inventory search of Defendant’s vehicle by the Andrews Police Department was not conducted pursuant to any specific criteria, much less a standardized criteria. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion as to the first traffic stop, and the Crown Royal bag and its contents are excluded.\u201d United States v. Seward, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141622 (D. S.C. Aug. 7, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s detention was admittedly reasonable, and his furtive movement caused the officer to ask whether he was armed, and defendant said he was. United States v. Weatherspoon<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 24991 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There was an inventory policy, but the police were unfamiliar with it and didn\u2019t follow it. \u201c[T]he Court finds that the inventory search of Defendant’s vehicle by the Andrews Police Department was not conducted pursuant to any specific criteria, much … Continue reading