Question for police/law types

[OUDoc]

A friend totaled his car in a single car accident. He was hospitalized for weeks with a bad compound fracture to his leg. He has a drug history and, from what I understand, drugs were found in the car by the impound people, not the police officer at the scene. (I have no idea if they checked a urine drug screen in the ER, I assume they did on a single car accident.)
I'm curious, does that break the chain of evidence or, I assume, is the impound lot (or wherever they take a totaled car) considered secure enough to allow things to be found this way? I may have worded that badly, but you get the point.
Just in case you are wondering, he claims these drugs were stashed in the car from his earlier days and he didn't know they were still in there. :rolleyes:

[frankensooner]

Nope. That does not break the chain of custody. That is pretty much standard procedure.

[jk the sooner fan]

A friend totaled his car in a single car accident. He was hospitalized for weeks with a bad compound fracture to his leg. He has a drug history and, from what I understand, drugs were found in the car by the impound people, not the police officer at the scene. (I have no idea if they checked a urine drug screen in the ER, I assume they did on a single car accident.)
I'm curious, does that break the chain of evidence or, I assume, is the impound lot (or wherever they take a totaled car) considered secure enough to allow things to be found this way? I may have worded that badly, but you get the point.
Just in case you are wondering, he claims these drugs were stashed in the car from his earlier days and he didn't know they were still in there. :rolleyes:

depending on what the drugs were kept in, all they need to do is find his fingerprints on the bag (or whatever)

chain of custody isnt an issue, but possession is......i would think that since the drugs were found in his car when he wasnt in control of it, means the police have some forensic work to do

chain of custody begins when the first law enforcement official takes possession of the evidence

[OUDoc]

Thanks.

[MamaMia]

depending on what the drugs were kept in, all they need to do is find his fingerprints on the bag (or whatever)

chain of custody isnt an issue, but possession is......i would think that since the drugs were found in his car when he wasnt in control of it, means the police have some forensic work to do

chain of custody begins when the first law enforcement official takes possession of the evidenceIf the police were the ones who had the car towed, wouldn't the chain of custody not begin at that time?

[jk the sooner fan]

If the police were the ones who had the car towed, wouldn't the chain of custody not begin at that time?

if they had it impounded in a police impound/evidence lot, then yes

if not.....then no

some police departments handle this differently than others......alot of PD's will do an "impound inventory", which means that upon impound, the contents are inventoried...its a fancy word for "search", but its legal......if the drugs are found while the car is still in police possession, then they've got him

but if its found after the police have released the car to a wrecker who's simply putting it in a storage lot with a ton of other cars, it gets a little trickier.....

at least in my opinion - i might be wrong

[olevetonahill]

I agree with JK ,

[achiro]

When I was working the Muskogee PD, we always did an inventory before we released the car to the tow company. There was not a specific police impound and I suspect that most Oklahoma pd's do not have their own impound lot/tow trucks.
I am not a lawyer but I can't imagine that he could be charged with possession after the fact and that a decent lawyer couldn't get that thrown out pretty quick.

[jk the sooner fan]

I am not a lawyer but I can't imagine that he could be charged with possession after the fact and that a decent lawyer couldn't get that thrown out pretty quick.

kinda what i was thinking.....unless they can put his fingerprints on the container

and by "put on", i mean "find"

[sooner_born_1960]

and by "put on", i mean "find"
We know exactly what you and 99% of your kind meant. ;)

[MojoRisen]

A friend totaled his car in a single car accident. He was hospitalized for weeks with a bad compound fracture to his leg. He has a drug history and, from what I understand, drugs were found in the car by the impound people, not the police officer at the scene. (I have no idea if they checked a urine drug screen in the ER, I assume they did on a single car accident.)
I'm curious, does that break the chain of evidence or, I assume, is the impound lot (or wherever they take a totaled car) considered secure enough to allow things to be found this way? I may have worded that badly, but you get the point.
Just in case you are wondering, he claims these drugs were stashed in the car from his earlier days and he didn't know they were still in there. :rolleyes:

What right did the wrecker service have to search his car? It is not their job nor is it not able to be questioned as non procedure... If I were him I would not admit too having stashed it but oh well.

[jk the sooner fan]

What right did the wrecker service have to search his car? It is not their job nor is it not able to be questioned as non procedure... If I were him I would not admit too having stashed it but oh well.

they have the right to inventory the car as its in their possession, to protect them from somebody coming back and saying "i had 10K in my car"

[MojoRisen]

they have the right to inventory the car as its in their possession, to protect them from somebody coming back and saying "i had 10K in my car"

I may very well be wrong but if he is paying for the storage and it is not being held as evidence- doesn't he have a right too privacy as well?

Either way it is kind of a botched search...

[jk the sooner fan]

you dont have a constitutional right to privacy from a private citizen (i.e., the wrecker).....you only have a right against unlawful search and seizure from a government entity

under the "care, custody, and control", the wrecker has every right to inventory property he is liable for

[yermom]

so Doc, how did all that time in the hospital affect your practice?

[OUDoc]

so Doc, how did all that time in the hospital affect your practice?
I'm better...ummm...he's okay.

What was the question again? ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

you dont have a constitutional right to privacy from a private citizen (i.e., the wrecker).....you only have a right against unlawful search and seizure from a government entity

under the "care, custody, and control", the wrecker has every right to inventory property he is liable for

Winner! On both counts, in fact.

Random Froze Fact with only tangential bearing on the thread:

The ISO General Liability policy will only cover liability for the care, custody, and control of other people's property up to $2,500. People who have care, custody, and control of significantly more valuable property (such as dry cleaners or auto repair shops) must purchase additional coverage in the form of an endorsement (dry cleaners) or garagekeeper's coverage.

[MamaMia]

they have the right to inventory the car as its in their possession, to protect them from somebody coming back and saying "i had 10K in my car"How would that protect them? Wrecker service people searching an individuals vehicle doesn't protect them from any possible wrong doing on their part. Searching the vehicle would not prove guilt or innocence. There is always the possibility that the wrecker company could steal something and say they didn't. There is also the possibility that the police could plant items in the vehicle, or compensate the wrecker service employee to plant something, whether the vehicle was in a private lot or one owned by the city. This is more of an investigative question than a legal one.

[Frozen Sooner]

How would that protect them? Wrecker service people searching an individuals vehicle doesn't protect them from any possible wrong doing on their part. Searching the vehicle would prove guilt or innocence. There is always the possibility that the wrecker company could steal something and say they didn't. There is also the possibility that the police could plant items in the vehicle, or compensate the wrecker service employee to plant something, whether the vehicle was in a private lot or one owned by the city. This is more of an investigative question than a legal one.

I can't speak for a wrecker company, but I would assume that any inventory would be done 1) at check-in and 2) under dual-control with both employees signing the inventory sheet.

Moreso than the case where inventory is done to protect the lot from allegations of theft (since most wrecker yards have waivers in place to protect them from such allegations anyhow), search of the vehicle is necessary to ensure safety of the employees of the wrecking yard. There may be items of inherent danger in the vehicle that need to be removed.'

Further, as jk already pointed out, the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure only applies to governmental entities, not private citizens acting in a reasonable and prudent manner. Also diminishing the vehicle owner's protection against s&s is that the vehicle has been consigned to the C,C,&C of another, which denies them the defense of an expectation of privacy. Consider the case of a suit sent to the dry cleaner that has a baggie of coke in the pocket-does the owner of the suit have a protection against the dry-cleaner turning out the pockets?

[jk the sooner fan]

what Mike said

[MamaMia]

Any attorney worth his salt, or who has a good investigator, both of which I realize are very hard to find, could get this guy off during a jury trial, unless the defendants prints, and or DNA happen to be connected to the drugs or container, but keep in mind that prints and DNA can be planted as well.

[MojoRisen]

If it were inventoried then it is a baggy of white substance... do they then weigh it and test it to understand its value?? Could be detergent-

[olevetonahill]

Hell Doc , If hes a friend . Just wright him a script for em :D

[jk the sooner fan]

do tell, how do you plant finger prints?

and of course, any illegal substance has to be chemically tested before they're going to take anybody to trial....the police will do a field test which is considered a "presumptive positive".....then followed up by a lab test

[MojoRisen]

If it is being held as evidence- I am sure there is procedure for search and testing too determine the substance and that the search was too spec... If it is being held by the wecker no way can they prove that the person actually put the substance in the container even with finger prints on the container- in my opinion...

[jk the sooner fan]

his fingerprints on the baggie would be enough

at least from the cases i've submitted for prosecution

[MojoRisen]

I would agree unless the search isn't up too standard procedure... raises too much reasonable doubt...

[jk the sooner fan]

ok