US v. Allen: Raleigh, North Carolina, police officers were searching a car when Allen rode through the scene on a bicycle, during which he “rode around the officers and patrol cars and also weaved in and out of the crime scene” for 10 to 20 minutes. Naturally, this got him arrested, which Allen vigorously resisted. Once he was handcuffed (but still struggling), an officer searched a pair of “cross body bags” that had been removed from him during the arrest. Inside were two firearms, drugs, and related items. Allen moved to suppress that evidence, arguing that the warrantless search of the bags was not proper under the search incident to arrest doctrine. The Government argued that it was, but that even if it wasn’t the bags would have been searched pursuant to local police department or jail inventory search policies. The district court granted the motion, holding that the initial search was improper and declining to apply the inventory search doctrine.
The Government took an interlocutory appeal and the Fourth Circuit reversed. Focusing on the inventory search argument (the Government preserved the search incident to arrest argument for potential Supreme Court review), the court rejected all the reasons the district court gave for not applying it here. First, the court rejected the district court’s flat out disapproval of the inventory search doctrine (calling it “one of my favorite cliches” which was “going nowhere”), noting that as lower courts they were bound by the Supreme Court’s pronouncements. Second, the court held that the district court erred by requiring the Government to provide a written policy from the local jail, reiterating that written policies are no required so long as there is evidence of regular procedures. Finally, the court “fail[ed] to understand the observation that the policies here lacked ‘enough regularity,’” noting that they both applied to every person arrested and all property in their possession.
No comments:
Post a Comment