X hits on this document

PDF document

No. 2—09—0833 Opinion iled March 31, 2011 - page 24 / 24

67 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

24 / 24

No. 2—09—0833

vehicle does not create any need for the police to protect the vehicle or to avoid a hazard to other

drivers.” Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 866 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, as the majority

recognizes, the fact that a car would be left unattended does not justify impoundment unless the car

would be parked illegally. Slip op. at 9. Here, defendant’s car was parked in a residential area four

blocks from her home and was not blocking traffic or a driveway. Slip op. at 3. The majority states

that, because defendant did not have proof of insurance, her car was tantamount to a disabled vehicle

because it could not be operated until proof of insurance was shown. Slip op. at 12. However, it

does not logically follow that the car could not remain legally parked without proof of insurance. In

other words, the legally parked car was not in any sense jeopardizing public safety or impeding the

efficient movement of traf ic, so its impoundment cannot be justified as a street caretaking function.

Accordingly, I would hold that the vehicle’s impoundment was unreasonable, and I would affirm the

trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion to suppress.

  • -

    24-

Document info
Document views67
Page views67
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 16:34:14 UTC 2016
Pages24
Paragraphs591
Words7652

Comments