1. Changing Lanes: New Directions in Vehicle Search Law The Gant Opinion & Inventory Law Joseph Hoelscher (210) 378-5639 Blakely Mohr (210) 422-0797 123 S. Flores San Antonio, Texas 78204

2. Arizona v. Gant Facts Rodney Gant pulled up in his car at a crime scene. Rodney Gant pulled up in his car at a crime scene. Officers recognized him, knew that his license was suspended, and knew that he had a warrant for driving on a suspended license Officers recognized him, knew that his license was suspended, and knew that he had a warrant for driving on a suspended license Gant parks, exits, closes door, and gets arrested 10-12 feet from vehicle Gant parks, exits, closes door, and gets arrested 10-12 feet from vehicle He’s handcuffed and placed in the back of a cruiser He’s handcuffed and placed in the back of a cruiser THEN the officers search his car, finding coke in a jacket pocket THEN the officers search his car, finding coke in a jacket pocket

3. Posture Gant argues to suppress the coke because he posed no danger to the officers, nor to any evidence, once he was secured Gant argues to suppress the coke because he posed no danger to the officers, nor to any evidence, once he was secured Officer admits he searched, “Because the law says we can do it.” Officer admits he searched, “Because the law says we can do it.” Az Supreme Court held that Belton doesn’t apply when a scene has been secured Az Supreme Court held that Belton doesn’t apply when a scene has been secured The dissenting justices followed Belton but noted that it “probably merits reconsideration” and asked for cert. The dissenting justices followed Belton but noted that it “probably merits reconsideration” and asked for cert. USSC agreed USSC agreed

4. History of Vehicle Search Law “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967)

5. History of Vehicle Search Law Among the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914). Among the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914). The exception derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations. See United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 230–234 (1973); Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969) The exception derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations. See United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 230–234 (1973); Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969)

6. History of Vehicle Search Law search incident to arrest may only include “the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’—construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel, 395 U. S., at 763. search incident to arrest may only include “the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’—construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel, 395 U. S., at 763. New York v. Belton applied Chimel to the vehicle search New York v. Belton applied Chimel to the vehicle search Thornton v. United States, 541 U. S. 615 (2004) – included passengers Thornton v. United States, 541 U. S. 615 (2004) – included passengers

7. Belton: Holding When an officer lawfully arrests “the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the automobile” and any containers therein. New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981). When an officer lawfully arrests “the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the automobile” and any containers therein. New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981). assumed that articles inside the passenger compartment of a vehicle are generally within “the area into which an arrestee might reach.” assumed that articles inside the passenger compartment of a vehicle are generally within “the area into which an arrestee might reach.”

8. Belton: Facts A single officer stops a car with four occupants for speeding A single officer stops a car with four occupants for speeding He notices a smell of marijuana and an envelope marked “Supergold” He notices a smell of marijuana and an envelope marked “Supergold” Occupants are arrested and separated on the roadside, but not handcuffed Occupants are arrested and separated on the roadside, but not handcuffed He searches the vehicle and finds coke in the pocket of a jacket in the back seat He searches the vehicle and finds coke in the pocket of a jacket in the back seat

9. What’s Different in Gant? Gant had already exited the vehicle Gant had already exited the vehicle Car door was closed Car door was closed Gant was outnumbered by the cops Gant was outnumbered by the cops He was frisked He was frisked Handcuffed Handcuffed Placed in the back of a cruiser Placed in the back of a cruiser Arrested for a traffic violation Arrested for a traffic violation

10. Gant Holding 1. Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search (Chimel) 2. Police may also search when it’s “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” (Thornton v. United States, 541 U. S. 615 (2004)

11. 1 st Holding: Grabbing Distance 1 st Holding: Grabbing Distance Because officers have many means of ensuring the safe arrest of vehicle occupants, it will be the rare case in which an officer is unable to fully effectuate an arrest so that a real possibility of access to the arrestee’s vehicle remains. Cf. 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §7.1(c), p. 525 (4th ed. 2004) Because officers have many means of ensuring the safe arrest of vehicle occupants, it will be the rare case in which an officer is unable to fully effectuate an arrest so that a real possibility of access to the arrestee’s vehicle remains. Cf. 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §7.1(c), p. 525 (4th ed. 2004)

12. 2 nd Holding: Relevant Evidence the offense of arrest will supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein the offense of arrest will supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence

13. Other Ways to Search When reasonable suspicion that someone is “dangerous” and may access vehicle to “gain immediate control of weapons” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983) When reasonable suspicion that someone is “dangerous” and may access vehicle to “gain immediate control of weapons” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 (1983) If there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 820–821 (1982) If there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 820–821 (1982) Protective sweep allowed if reasonable suspicion that a dangerous person is hiding Maryland v. Buie, 494 U. S. 325, 334 (1990) Protective sweep allowed if reasonable suspicion that a dangerous person is hiding Maryland v. Buie, 494 U. S. 325, 334 (1990) Inventory Searches – when driver arrested Inventory Searches – when driver arrested

14. Limits If some occupants are not arrested, they may still pose a threat If some occupants are not arrested, they may still pose a threat Search ok when non-occupants create a threat to safety or evidence Search ok when non-occupants create a threat to safety or evidence Why rs not pc? Why rs not pc? Why only passenger compartment? Why only passenger compartment?

15. 1L Law US & Tex Const. both guarantee the right to be secure from unreasonable searches & seizures. US & Tex Const. both guarantee the right to be secure from unreasonable searches & seizures. Texas Code of Crim. Proc. Art. 38.23(a) Forbids any evidence obtained in violation of such guarantees to be admitted against an accused Texas Code of Crim. Proc. Art. 38.23(a) Forbids any evidence obtained in violation of such guarantees to be admitted against an accused 1L Law

16. Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable. Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable. However, certain exceptions have developed over the years to the warrant requirement under federal and state law allow warrantless searches. However, certain exceptions have developed over the years to the warrant requirement under federal and state law allow warrantless searches.

17. 1L Law Categories of warrantless searches related to arrests & detentions of persons and things: Categories of warrantless searches related to arrests & detentions of persons and things: (1) Searches Incident to Arrest (1) Searches Incident to Arrest (2) Searches of Objects Pursuant to Reasonable Suspicion (e.g. Dog Sniff) (2) Searches of Objects Pursuant to Reasonable Suspicion (e.g. Dog Sniff) (3) Inventory Searches (3) Inventory Searches

18. Need to Know Case Law for the Warrantless Inventory Search Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) Must be conducted pursuant to “standardized criteria” or “established routine”. Must be conducted pursuant to “standardized criteria” or “established routine”. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) No bright-line rule: “Reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the 4AM, even though courts might…be able to devise equally reasonable rules requiring a different procedure.” No bright-line rule: “Reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the 4AM, even though courts might…be able to devise equally reasonable rules requiring a different procedure.” Police Discretion Okay: “exercise of police discretion so long as that discretion is exercised on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity” Police Discretion Okay: “exercise of police discretion so long as that discretion is exercised on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity”

19. Need to Know Case Law for the Warrantless Inventory Search Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) Provides laundry list of situations where impoundment of a vehicle would likely be permissible Provides laundry list of situations where impoundment of a vehicle would likely be permissible Advises that a regulation mandating impoundment in any situation where an individual is arrested is too broad Advises that a regulation mandating impoundment in any situation where an individual is arrested is too broad Rodriguez v. State, 641 S.W.2d 955 (Tex. App-Amarillo 1982) Rodriguez v. State, 641 S.W.2d 955 (Tex. App-Amarillo 1982) Impoundment and Search must be carefully examined & narrowly confined in each case. Impoundment and Search must be carefully examined & narrowly confined in each case. Crittenden v. State, 899 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) Crittenden v. State, 899 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) Stated there was no difference b/w the protections of Article 1, sec. 9 of the Texas Constitution and the 4Am Stated there was no difference b/w the protections of Article 1, sec. 9 of the Texas Constitution and the 4Am

20. Inventory Definition & Purpose In a valid inventory search, after lawfully taking custody of property, police may conduct a warrantless search of the property to satisfy (3) three purposes: In a valid inventory search, after lawfully taking custody of property, police may conduct a warrantless search of the property to satisfy (3) three purposes: (1) To protect the owner’s property while it is in custody (1) To protect the owner’s property while it is in custody (2) To protect the police against claims of stolen property (2) To protect the police against claims of stolen property (3) To protect the police from potential danger (3) To protect the police from potential danger

21. Inventory in the Wake of Gant Search Incident to Arrest (SIA) was all the buzz! Search Incident to Arrest (SIA) was all the buzz! Now: Cops won’t be able to laundry list!!! Now: Cops won’t be able to laundry list!!! But: Everyone is going to get towed!!! But: Everyone is going to get towed!!!

22. Challenging Impoundment & Inventory Begin with the end in mind! Begin with the end in mind! Standard of Review: Standard of Review: Remember that the Court of Appeals get to review de novo those issues where the trial court may have applied the law incorrectly to the facts. Remember that the Court of Appeals get to review de novo those issues where the trial court may have applied the law incorrectly to the facts. Preserve error and object correctly! Preserve error and object correctly!

23. Challenging Impoundment & Inventory Burden of Proof Burden of Proof The BOP will switch to the State when you properly raise your objection to the search and/or seizure. The BOP will switch to the State when you properly raise your objection to the search and/or seizure. The State then has the burden to show that the police followed the proper procedures. The State then has the burden to show that the police followed the proper procedures. Yaws v. State, 38 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d). Yaws v. State, 38 S.W.3d 720, 723 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d). Failure by the State to show evidence that the search was conducted pursuant to the police department’s procedure will invalidate the search. Failure by the State to show evidence that the search was conducted pursuant to the police department’s procedure will invalidate the search.

24. Challenging Impoundment & Inventory Develop your attack – Case law is wibbly- wabbly Develop your attack – Case law is wibbly- wabbly Courts wants to sway from a bright-line rule impeding authority, but they also don’t want to create endless impound & inventory searches Courts wants to sway from a bright-line rule impeding authority, but they also don’t want to create endless impound & inventory searches This is a great area to make some wakes in the law on appeal! This is a great area to make some wakes in the law on appeal!

25. Challenging Impoundment & Inventory Your Best bet – Argue Pretext Your Best bet – Argue Pretext Establish Bad Faith Establish Bad Faith Show Inconsistencies with the Officer’s testimony Show Inconsistencies with the Officer’s testimony Ask everything…inventory searches are very fact driven Ask everything…inventory searches are very fact driven Was an inventory actually done? Was an inventory actually done? Was the inventory done according to procedure? Was the inventory done according to procedure? What contents were actually inventoried? What contents were actually inventoried?

26. 10 Step Cheklist by Russell D. Hunt, Jr. "Understanding & Challenging Inventory Searches", Voice for the Defense, Vol. 38 No. 4 (May 2009) 10 Step Checklist for Litigating “Pretext Impoundment” Making no mistakes is what establishes victory, For it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated. ~Sun-tzu

27. The Ten Steps Applied San Antonio Police Department

28. Step 1 Are there Policy Limitations? Were there standardized criteria for an inventory search to limit the officer’s discretion in deciding whether, when, & how to conduct the purported inventory? Were there standardized criteria for an inventory search to limit the officer’s discretion in deciding whether, when, & how to conduct the purported inventory? If no, there may as well be no policy at all. If no, there may as well be no policy at all.

29. Step 1 Are there Policy Limitations? Standardized Criteria: Standardized Criteria: San Antonio Police Dep’t General Manual San Antonio Police Dep’t General Manual Procedure 502. “Warrantless, Arrests, Searches & Seizures” Procedure 502. “Warrantless, Arrests, Searches & Seizures” Procedure 606. “Impounding Property” Procedure 606. “Impounding Property” Procedure 607. “Impounding Vehicles” Procedure 607. “Impounding Vehicles” YES WE HAVE SOME POLICY! YES WE HAVE SOME POLICY!

30. Step 2 Determine Accuracy & Uniformity Can the officer articulate the standardized criteria accurately or in detail? Can the officer articulate the standardized criteria accurately or in detail? Do the standardized criteria described by other officers match those claimed by the arresting officer? Do the standardized criteria described by other officers match those claimed by the arresting officer?

31. Step 2 Determine Accuracy & Uniformity SAPD are trained to articulate uniform policies… SAPD are trained to articulate uniform policies… Proc. 502(.01): Proc. 502(.01): These guidelines are designed to assist officers of SAPD in determining how & when it is appropriate to enforce the law through warrantless arrests, searches & seizures… These guidelines are designed to assist officers of SAPD in determining how & when it is appropriate to enforce the law through warrantless arrests, searches & seizures… Proc. 607(.01): Proc. 607(.01): This procedure establishes guidelines for the impoundment of motor vehicles… This procedure establishes guidelines for the impoundment of motor vehicles… Proc. 606(.01)(B): Proc. 606(.01)(B): The confiscatory & custodial responsibilities of SAPD are used as a basis for ANY impoundment of property The confiscatory & custodial responsibilities of SAPD are used as a basis for ANY impoundment of property

32. Step 3 Is Policy Written or Oral? If the policy is in writing, where is it? If the policy is in writing, where is it? Is there a formalized, written policy manual? Is there a formalized, written policy manual?

33. Step 3 Is Policy Written or Oral? Bexar County & SAPD have written policy… Bexar County & SAPD have written policy… SAPD – Newly updated…734 PAGES!!! SAPD – Newly updated…734 PAGES!!! Available on CD for $1.00 through Records Request /w fax to (210)207-4262 Available on CD for $1.00 through Records Request /w fax to (210)207-4262 Bexar Co. Sheriff’s – Pain in the Ass! Bexar Co. Sheriff’s – Pain in the Ass! Mandate a Freedom of Info. Act Request Mandate a Freedom of Info. Act Request But…policies identical…Chiefs & Deputies almost all retired SAPD But…policies identical…Chiefs & Deputies almost all retired SAPD

34. Step 4 If the Policy is oral … If the policy is ORAL, describe how this custom & usage came into being and who the oral historians are who are responsible for it. If the policy is ORAL, describe how this custom & usage came into being and who the oral historians are who are responsible for it. Consider subpoenaing several officers and getting them each to describe the policy. Consider subpoenaing several officers and getting them each to describe the policy.

35. Step 4 If the Policy is oral … WE HAVE WRITTEN POLICY…YAY! WE HAVE WRITTEN POLICY…YAY!

36. Step 5 Determine if a Link Exists! Is there any relationship between the arrest or impoundment and the need for an inventory? Is there any relationship between the arrest or impoundment and the need for an inventory? E.g. Does the inventory stand on its own and not as a search incident to arrest? E.g. Does the inventory stand on its own and not as a search incident to arrest? We now know that searches incident to arrest are much more limited than they were before Gant!!! We now know that searches incident to arrest are much more limited than they were before Gant!!!

37. Step 5 Determine if a Link Exists! 607(.06)(A)(1)-(2) 607(.06)(A)(1)-(2) Officers submit a written report, showing justification for impoundment, when impounding ANY VEHICLE…* Officers submit a written report, showing justification for impoundment, when impounding ANY VEHICLE…* Provides for a couple exceptions Provides for a couple exceptions Copies of the report are forwarded to: Copies of the report are forwarded to: The Motor Vehicle Theft Detail AND The Motor Vehicle Theft Detail AND Municipal Court, if applicable, attached to Order of Impoundment Municipal Court, if applicable, attached to Order of Impoundment Subpoenaing these records may show that no need or justification existed for an inventory! Subpoenaing these records may show that no need or justification existed for an inventory!

38. Step 6 Find the Inventory Form Does the agency have an inventory form? Does the agency have an inventory form? If so, was it used? If so, was it used? IF NOT, the argument is that this WAS NOT an inventory search, but an investigative search IF NOT, the argument is that this WAS NOT an inventory search, but an investigative search

39. Step 6 Find the Inventory Form YES! Look to 607(.06) Officer’s Responsibilities YES! Look to 607(.06) Officer’s Responsibilities Proc. 607(.06)(C)(1), (4) Proc. 607(.06)(C)(1), (4) Officers WILL complete the Towing Service Record, listing any damage noted on vehicle. Officers WILL complete the Towing Service Record, listing any damage noted on vehicle. Officers WILL use Property Receipts for ALL impounded property…[and are] REQUIRED to complete SAPD Form No. 113, Receipt for Property, for any property received from an individual Officers WILL use Property Receipts for ALL impounded property…[and are] REQUIRED to complete SAPD Form No. 113, Receipt for Property, for any property received from an individual

40. Step 7 Determine if Defendant Participated in Inventory Process Was any list made? Was any list made? Did the Defendant sign the inventory sheet to show he knew what was inventoried? Did the Defendant sign the inventory sheet to show he knew what was inventoried? If the officer’s theory is that he wants to protect defendant’s property wouldn’t it be reasonable to confirm with Defendant that all the property he expected was actually inventoried? If the officer’s theory is that he wants to protect defendant’s property wouldn’t it be reasonable to confirm with Defendant that all the property he expected was actually inventoried?

41. Step 7 Determine if Defendant Participated in Inventory Process 607(.06)(C)(4) 607(.06)(C)(4) Property Receipts will be used for all impounded property, in accordance w/ 606 Property Receipts will be used for all impounded property, in accordance w/ 606 606(.06)(B)(1)(a)-(c) 606(.06)(B)(1)(a)-(c) When impounding property…will complete…SAPD Form No. 113 Receipt for Property, in triplicate, for any property received or confiscated from an individual. When impounding property…will complete…SAPD Form No. 113 Receipt for Property, in triplicate, for any property received or confiscated from an individual. SAPD Form No. 113 is routed as (1) an Original to Records Unit; (2) A copy to the person whom the property is taken; and (3) A copy to the appropriate investigative follow-up unit. SAPD Form No. 113 is routed as (1) an Original to Records Unit; (2) A copy to the person whom the property is taken; and (3) A copy to the appropriate investigative follow-up unit.

42. Step 8 Objective Goals of the Inventory? How was the inventory conducted? How was the inventory conducted? The thoroughness or lack of detail in performing the inventory can give clues as to whether it was really an investigative search. The thoroughness or lack of detail in performing the inventory can give clues as to whether it was really an investigative search. Likewise, if the inventory essentially ends when the sough-after object is found, it is a criminal evidentiary search !!! Likewise, if the inventory essentially ends when the sough-after object is found, it is a criminal evidentiary search !!! The goal of the search (evidence collection) had been reached so the search could end at that point. The goal of the search (evidence collection) had been reached so the search could end at that point.

43. Step 8 Objective Goals of the Inventory? 607(.15) Inventory & Disposition of Property From Impounded Vehicles 607(.15) Inventory & Disposition of Property From Impounded Vehicles (A) Officers Inventory all impounded vehicles for any items of personal property. An inventory is a process for locating personal property so it can be protected while in the custody of SAPD (A) Officers Inventory all impounded vehicles for any items of personal property. An inventory is a process for locating personal property so it can be protected while in the custody of SAPD (B) An inventory is limited to places where a person ordinarily would store or leave items of personal property, such as: (B) An inventory is limited to places where a person ordinarily would store or leave items of personal property, such as: (1) Passenger Compartment, (2) Trunk, if key is available; and, (3) Any open container. (1) Passenger Compartment, (2) Trunk, if key is available; and, (3) Any open container.

44. Step 8 Objective Goals of the Inventory? 607(.15) Inventory & Disposition of Property From Impounded Vehicles 607(.15) Inventory & Disposition of Property From Impounded Vehicles (C) All personal property found during an inventory of a vehicle is listed in the details of a written report. The personal property is listed according to the location where it was found (e.g. under front seat, passenger compartment, trunk, etc.) (C) All personal property found during an inventory of a vehicle is listed in the details of a written report. The personal property is listed according to the location where it was found (e.g. under front seat, passenger compartment, trunk, etc.) (D) All personal property found during an inventory of a vehicle is placed in the Property Room…(note exceptions Locked & Bulky) (D) All personal property found during an inventory of a vehicle is placed in the Property Room…(note exceptions Locked & Bulky)

45. Step 8 Objective Goals of the Inventory? Written Conduct for Impounding… For Forfeiture 607(.07) As Prisoner’s Personal Prop. 607(.09) As Evidence 607(.08) For Traffic Violations 607(.10) Abandoned Vehicle 607(.11) Recovered Stolen Vehicle 607(.12) From Accident Scene 607(.13)

46. Step 9 Subjective Intent of Officer… What was the true motivation for the purported inventory? What was the true motivation for the purported inventory? This can be shown circumstantially by: This can be shown circumstantially by: How the search was conducted OR How the search was conducted OR How the officer referred to the inventory How the officer referred to the inventory If police report calls the search “incident to arrest”, it’s difficult for the officer to argue that it was an inventory search. If police report calls the search “incident to arrest”, it’s difficult for the officer to argue that it was an inventory search.

47. Step 9 Subjective Intent of Officer… Determine any flaws with his/her reporting Determine any flaws with his/her reporting Many reports…look to language in writing… Many reports…look to language in writing… Police Report Police Report Accident Report, if any. Accident Report, if any. Mandatory Written Reports showing justification for impounding the vehicle (Proc. 607(.06)(A)) Mandatory Written Reports showing justification for impounding the vehicle (Proc. 607(.06)(A)) Towing Service Record (TSR Form) Towing Service Record (TSR Form) Receipt for Property Duplicates (SAPD Form No. 113) Receipt for Property Duplicates (SAPD Form No. 113) Impounded Vehicle Release (SAPD Form No. 13) Impounded Vehicle Release (SAPD Form No. 13)

48. Step 9 Subjective Intent of Officer… Lock the officer down to his words! Lock the officer down to his words! Inventory Searches = More Paperwork! Inventory Searches = More Paperwork! Officers = Hate Paperwork! Officers = Hate Paperwork! DO NOT LET THE GOVERNMENT HAVE A WEASEL IN THIS HUNT! DO NOT LET THE GOVERNMENT HAVE A WEASEL IN THIS HUNT!

49. Step 10 Flip the Burden Inventories are warrantless searches presumed invalid under the Fourth Amendment, so… Inventories are warrantless searches presumed invalid under the Fourth Amendment, so… THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SUSTAIN THEM !!! THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SUSTAIN THEM !!!

50. Step 10 Flip the Burden Argue the SAPD Policies and Procedures… Argue the SAPD Policies and Procedures… Take everything you discovered in Steps 1-9 and destroy that Officer’s testimony Take everything you discovered in Steps 1-9 and destroy that Officer’s testimony There isn’t a lot of wiggle room when everything you do is dictated word for word in a Manual. There isn’t a lot of wiggle room when everything you do is dictated word for word in a Manual.