Belief that there was a gun left in defendant\u2019s car was a valid justification for its inventory [remember Cady v. Dombrowski and the off-duty officer\u2019s service revolver?]. United States v. Bah, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148943 (E.D. Tenn. August 8, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Officer Davidson testified repeatedly that his primary focus in conducting an inventory search was to look for weapons. Harvey’s strange actions in the car raised a reasonable suspicion that there were guns in the car, and Officer Davidson was concerned about leaving weapons in an impounded car which could be stolen, and used, by anyone.<\/p>\n
Officer Davidson also called a K-9 officer to walk his drug dog around the car. Officer Davidson testified he requested that this be done because the vehicle was a rental car. If the car had drugs concealed within it, subsequent renters of the car could be caused a great deal of trouble. If the car had been owned by Bah, walking a drug dog around it would suggest that Officer Davidson was motivated to search for evidence of a crime. But this was a rental car. Officer Davidson’s explanation for requesting the drug dog walk-around makes sense, and is believed.<\/p>\n
This was a valid inventory search to the necessary towing and impoundment of the vehicle, and it was in no way a pretense to search for evidence of contraband.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading