Inventory search exception upheld in New Jersey
New Jersey has upheld an inventory search of a vehicle that turned up evidence of an additional crime.
The Cite: New Jersey v. Telepo, Unpublished, Decided September 17, 2008
Quote:
It is clear to this Court that the Rangers were only inventorying the car in order to protect themselves against future claims, and Mr. Telepo's property. Ranger Croll testified that he was suspicious of the safe, but he had no reason to believe that it was evidence of a crime. Ranger Croll even instructed Ranger Murphy to return multiple items back to the vehicle because they had no reason to believe they were linked to any crime. The third condition is the fact that if the owner is present, he must be given the option to consent to the search. State v. Mangold, 82 N.J. 575 (1980). It is clear from the testimony that Mr. Telepo had become belligerent at this time and it would have been impossible for the Rangers to get the consent of the defendant or to allow him to make other [arrangements]. Since all of the conditions have been met, it is clear to this Court that the vehicle was impounded lawfully, and that a proper inventory search had been conducted. It is clear from the testimony that at the time of the inventory search, the Rangers had no knowledge of the break-ins that had occurred at Millbrook Village, and the Rangers even testified that at that time they had no probable cause to believe that another crime had been committed.
The appeals court basically adopted the Superior Court Judge’s ruling and upheld the initial impound search.
Analysis: While search incident to arrest in DUI cases may be on the ropes, the inventory exception to the warrant requirement will typically support the admission of evidence found following a DUI arrest.
http://www.duilawblog.com/admin/trackback/98910
