CA2: NYPD’s inventory policy satisfies Wells
FourthAmendment.com:
NYPD’s inventory policy satisfied Wells, even though it was not fully standardized. United States v. Lopez, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23392 (2d Cir. November 10, 2008):
It is true, without doubt, that the Court has stressed the need for a standardized policy. The Court has made it clear that a standardized policy is required so that inventory searches do not become “a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.” Wells, 495 U.S. at 4. The evidence adduced at the trial satisfied this standard. The unchallenged testimony of both Officer Arroyo and Sgt. Barrett established that there is a uniform standardized policy in the New York City Police Department to do a complete inventory search of the contents when a car is impounded. Arroyo testified, “[Y]ou have to do a total inventory of the vehicle. Everything has to come out.” Sgt. Barrett confirmed that it is the responsibility of the officer to conduct an inventory search of an impounded car in order “to see if there were any items that needed to be safeguarded.” This evidence was unchallenged and was credited by the district court. Accordingly, the purposes of the Supreme Court’s requirement of a standardized policy were satisfied.
Officer’s asked for an received consent from defendant’s live-in girlfriend. He was present and not asked for consent, and Randolph does not require it. United States v. Lopez, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 23303 (2d Cir. November 13, 2008).*