Repeater
Regular Member
imported post
From FourthAmendment.com:
Inventory policy giving passengers first opportunity to remove things not binding
Despite the wording of the police inventory policy that police shall give passengers in a car to be towed the opportunity to remove valuables before hand, they are not required to do so. United States v. Battle, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5427 (4th Cir. March 16, 2010) (unpublished): [Another warrantless good faith exception.]
In other words, despite the policy mandate that officers allow passengers to retrieve their personal belongings before conducting the inventory, the cops don't have to.
The cops stopped the vehicle because one of the "brake lights was inoperative."
The car was impounded because the driver "failed to produce a driver’s license, registration, or proof of insurance." Very bad.
Besides the obvious lesson to have valid papers while driving, if you ever get into a situation where the cops are going to tow your vehicle and inventory what's inside, insist on getting your valuables out beforehand. That especially applies to weapons and ammunition. Once again, the court is obsessed with officer safety. See footnote 2:
From FourthAmendment.com:
Inventory policy giving passengers first opportunity to remove things not binding
Despite the wording of the police inventory policy that police shall give passengers in a car to be towed the opportunity to remove valuables before hand, they are not required to do so. United States v. Battle, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5427 (4th Cir. March 16, 2010) (unpublished):
Battle argues that Officer Campbell deviated from the RPD policy because he failed to afford either himself or Laron an opportunity to remove any valuables from the vehicle before conducting an inventory search. For support that the RPD policy requires officers to allow passengers to remove valuables before towing, Battle points to Section III.B.2.b of the RPD policy, which provides that, "Prior to towing, the officer shall ... Ask the owner or operator of the vehicle to remove, if possible, all valuables from the vehicle prior to impoundment ..." J.A. 26-27. Even if we credit Battle's reading of the policy, Officer Campbell was not required to follow the RPD procedures word-for-word. Items seized during a legal inventory search may be admissible as evidence because "reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment, even though courts might as a matter of hindsight be able to devise equally reasonable rules requiring a different procedure." Bertine, 479 U.S. at 374 (emphasis added); see also Banks, 482 F.3d at 739 ("tandardized search procedures must be 'administered in good faith' for their attendant searches to satisfy the Fourth Amendment") (quoting Bertine, 479 U.S. at 376). The Fourth Amendment is satisfied so long as Officer Campbell conducted the inventory search and followed the procedures in good faith.
In other words, despite the policy mandate that officers allow passengers to retrieve their personal belongings before conducting the inventory, the cops don't have to.
The cops stopped the vehicle because one of the "brake lights was inoperative."
The car was impounded because the driver "failed to produce a driver’s license, registration, or proof of insurance." Very bad.
Besides the obvious lesson to have valid papers while driving, if you ever get into a situation where the cops are going to tow your vehicle and inventory what's inside, insist on getting your valuables out beforehand. That especially applies to weapons and ammunition. Once again, the court is obsessed with officer safety. See footnote 2:
The specific language of the policy does not require an officer to allow the passengers to retrieve their valuables before the inventory search.
Manifestly, allowing a motorist to retrieve containers before the completion of an inventory search would defeat one of the purposes of the search: the protection of an officer.
Manifestly, allowing a motorist to retrieve containers before the completion of an inventory search would defeat one of the purposes of the search: the protection of an officer.