United States v. Morris, No. 18-1810 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence after she conditionally pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that the CCSO had an impoundment and inventory policy; the district court did not err in finding that the officer's decision to use his discretion to impound the vehicle was legitimate and reasonable; the district court also did not err in finding the deputies followed the inventory policy without impermissible, unfettered discretion; because the policy required an inventory of the entire vehicle it was reasonable for the officers to open containers believed to have items valued at more than $25; the decision to terminate the inventory also complied with policy; and the officers' suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity did not establish that the sole purpose of the search was investigative.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Beam and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Absence of the written policy for impounding and inventorying vehicles did not preclude establishing its content by officer testimony, and the district court did not err in finding the county sheriff's office had an impoundment and inventory policy; nothing in the Fourth Amendment requires a police department to allow an arrested person to arrange for another person to pick up a vehicle to avoid impoundment and inventory; the district court did not err in determining the officers followed the inventory policy without impermissible, unfettered discretion; because the policy required an inventory of the entire vehicle it was reasonable for the officers to open containers believed to have items valued at more than $25; decision to terminate inventory to avoid damage to contents of the vehicle was reasonable and complied with the policy; officers' suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity did not establish that the sole purpose of the search was investigative. [ February 07, 2019
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.