That’s called an “inventory search”, and this motion says what happened isn’t an “inventory search” because they didn’t follow procedure (and cites supporting precedence).
If they would have just hauled him in for processing on the false identification, and then found the gun during an inventory search at the station, it would be better for the prosecution.
The motion also claims that the search couldn’t be a… safety search? (I don’t know the right term)… like checking a person for weapons, because before the search was initiated, the suspect was already handcuffed and separated from the backpack so didn’t have access to anything in it that could be hazardous to the officers. Prosecution might argue is was a safety search because they were looking for a hazard that didn’t need to be triggered by the suspect, like a timed device or just an incidental hazard.
That’s called an “inventory search”, and this motion says what happened isn’t an “inventory search” because they didn’t follow procedure (and cites supporting precedence).
If they would have just hauled him in for processing on the false identification, and then found the gun during an inventory search at the station, it would be better for the prosecution.
The motion also claims that the search couldn’t be a… safety search? (I don’t know the right term)… like checking a person for weapons, because before the search was initiated, the suspect was already handcuffed and separated from the backpack so didn’t have access to anything in it that could be hazardous to the officers. Prosecution might argue is was a safety search because they were looking for a hazard that didn’t need to be triggered by the suspect, like a timed device or just an incidental hazard.
IANAL, just an interested citizen.