US v. Treisman: Police were called to a bank in North Carolina where a van had been left overnight. Through the passenger window, an officer saw multiple firearms, ammunition, a container for Tennerite (“a legal target shooting product that can also be used to make explosives”), along with pills and a suitcase. One firearm was an assault rifle with an extended magazine. Some officers expressed concern over the contents of the van, while one suggested there might be someone inside in need of aid. Officers opened the slightly ajar rear door and did not find anyone inside, but found more guns. After the van had been towed away, Treisman arrived asking about it. He was detained and officers obtained a warrant to search Tresiman’s phone, which led to the discovery of child pornography. Treisman eventually pleaded guilty to charges related to those images as part of a plea agreement that allowed him to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Treisman’s motion to suppress. The court concluded that the initial entry of the van was reasonable under the community caretaking doctrine, in that the district court had not clearly erred by concluding that the officers were motivated primarily by safety concerns. Similarly, those concerns extended to the inventory search and seizure of the van, which was conducted pursuant to department polices (essentially). In addition, once “the cumulative effect of the contents of the van caused officers to suspect potential criminal activity . . . they initiated the criminal search warrant process.”
No comments:
Post a Comment