Even assuming that a tow and inventory is permissible for an illegal tint violation (comparing Atwater v. Lago Vista on trivial arrests not being unreasonable), the inventory police did not address such incidents and the inventory itself mentioned \u201cbackpack\u201d without the $150,000 in it, which was turned over to the DEA and not inventoried at all. The inventory was unreasonable. There also was no probable cause for the search of the car. United States v. Clayton, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12002 (E.D.Wis. Jan. 24, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAlthough the affidavit supporting the warrant to search Arwood’s house was imperfectly drafted, it was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to preclude the application of the good faith exception. The affidavit connected Arwood, the place to be searched, and the alleged criminal activity and provided additional information establishing the confidential source’s reliability. \u2026 Reading the affidavit \u2018hypertechnical[ly],\u2019 it does not say when the CS saw methamphetamine in Arwood’s house, but we cannot undertake such a reading. \u2026 Applying a \u2018realistic and commonsense approach,\u2019 \u2026 it is reasonable to read \u2018[w]ithin the last 48 hours\u2019 as describing when the CS saw methamphetamine in Arwood’s house.\u201d United States v. Arwood<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2048 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2022).* [Actually, the affidavit wasn\u2019t nearly as \u201cimperfectly drafted\u201d as all that. It wasn’t perfect, but few are.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Even assuming that a tow and inventory is permissible for an illegal tint violation (comparing Atwater v. Lago Vista on trivial arrests not being unreasonable), the inventory police did not address such incidents and the inventory itself mentioned \u201cbackpack\u201d without … Continue reading