unjustified warrantless investigatory search and yet that is exactly what happened here we know that from four aspects of the record that the search that occurred here was motivated for investigatory purposes and the inventory search especially clear with the printer cartridges where he said no i didn't pay attention to them when i st found them and then he admitted yes later once we got back to the station and i found counterfeit money then i realize account the cartels what do you mean paid no attention so together everything was documented was it right to a certain extent your honor but a couple responses to that st of all the purpose of the inventory form has two purposes but mainly it's to ensure that the person whose property is being taken away is protected and listed so that and a copy of that form are supposed to be given to the tow truck driver who is going to sign off on it so that it could be later be checked to make sure that there's all the items are there but that's if they were left there when they left there the test excuse me the record is not clear about whether the officers removed all the items on the spot and then when they actually how i'm counting pression they get that yeah i mean we do know that they know for their search was conducted but the incident report was written the day after the truck was towed and so wasn't done there on the spot as the as was required in order to actually inventory the items well listen done on the spot the excuse me the incident report where the items are actually listed on the form the form was filled out on the well the c h p one hundred and eighty dollars form excuse me is the inventory form but it was filled out or was at least partly filled out and then as judge present noted the police report contained the rest but that was the it's the police report that was written the day after after all right is that matter i mean it seems like it's a bit of a technical argument as to whether every item was on there or not i don't believe so your honor because it wasn't just that there was one small item missing the only item on the actual inventory form was the gun and then the i phone and the watch which we don't know where where those came from that officer robinson it's been a fair way to look at it is the there you the police officer put what's the most perhaps the most valuable or important things on the incident report and i phone or an apple watch you know if someone's missing it they'll complain whereas inkjet toner he'll put it later on the police report i mean that's to me seems like what the officer did here well actually it's circuit in the u s versus raul and specifically said that doing exactly what your honor just described choosing the evidentiary items and then you have items of the most exact line it says is c report driver was stopped for no license plates incorporates the incident report as to a description of the arrest it doesn't say syrup port for a list of the items i did not to me it's sort of matter is whether they the the told truck part i e that somebody else is going to have this would matter if in fact the stuff was left there we don't know that that's the items that were paid more attention to that were listed more carefully were all the in the evidentiary items the timing here is also suspicious at both in both the incident report and in the declarations the officer said that the inventory search did not be until after the glove compartment search happened it was only at the hearing that he said the inventory search started from the beginning and this i think as this court said in great quoting rally and suggest that something to suggest the police raise the inventory  search banner and then after the fact attempt to justify a simple investigatory search for investigatory purposes that timing the fact that his explanations changed indicates that he was not actually doing an inventory search from the beginning although it's pretty clear they could have done there's no disagreement that they could have done a search of the of the globe compartment that's regardless right no your honor i thought were contesting at every every phase of the search  wouldn't it be i mean it seems to me that it a minimum they both said hey this isn't our car at a minimum wouldn't the officer have been able to look in the glove compartment and determine whose car it was regardless of inventory search of anything else no you because at before they looked in the glove compartment mr magriel had already given them the true name of the owner and the officers had looked at that registration so there was no reason to look in the glove compartment to confirm what they already knew where a failure to follow policy combined with other indications excuse me that the search was actually a pretext and not for an inventory purpose those two issues combined would show an improper search which is what we report which was written the next day not when the inventory was supposed to happen and really just listen adams of evidence which again the courts have emphasizes not with the purpose of the inventory as i say i'm running low on time i thought the incident report listed everything  well it listed everything but the backpack is a crucial piece here and it just said backpack and other items whereas the other it didn't list out exactly what was in the backpack as opposed to the evidentiary dead and again the backpack they only had a right to look through the backpack on the basis of this so called inventory search and yet none of the items in a backpack were listed on the inventory form or in the incident report in the backpack looked through the lockbox found the gun and didn't list any of the other items there ok thank you very much morning honors and please the court roger shanley hath united states here we have a case in which officers came upon defendant who is legally parked blocking an alley with a car with non valid license plate and the moments they discovered the passenger was an act of parole and defendant was driving without a valid license here in routine patrol officers are required to inventory and on the car and that's what happened now the inventory form that your honour's have seen in the five lines the officers went beyond the inventory report they noted the presence of the i phone i watch the check the box regarding a spare tire radio other items in the car and they are on our side noted incorporated the report that it police was written on the same night that incident happened around eleven pm on october rd but the report wasn't finalized until october th in regard to the can i ask about the inventory form because it it it doesn't seem to be so it's more it is actually titled the vehicle report that seems to be what it is is what's the condition of the vehicle it's almost as if this was put together to determine whether the vehicle was damaged more so than in inventory form is it standard procedure to write all the inventory items on this vehicle report as part of an inventory search one that this is outside the record by my understanding from other cases multiple jurisdictions in california use a c h p one hundred form for the condition of the car and perhaps for inventory as your honor noted there's just five lines well i know that's a problem with the what the what the procedure because i mean obviously we have a line drawing problem here and the purpose of the exception is to allow for an inventory to protect both the police department the timing company and the individual's right if there is no inventory i e if you don't list out what the items are there it's in the car then it's a pointless exercise just sort of start saying well it doesn't matter whether your list amounts and seems to me you're saying it purpose of the community care taking function in the defendant will eventually receive a copy of the report to see what property was in his car is that right did he receive it we know that receive a copy of the report eventually and do we know whether all the items were taken out of the car snow's no telling company problem cartridges were in the backpack and the officers brought the backpack to the station and inventoried it as safe keeping not as evidence and then when they learned there was a problem and they went back and that doesn't speak to the officers motivation at the time the conduct  that said dual purposes are ok and the cases cited by defendant or as distinguished all in johnson officers explicitly admitted in the arrest report in the search warrant that they were searching for items and let's just look at the factors that the th circuit didn't necessarily discuss but leading up to the search in johnson there's an arrest warrant for the defendant rather than arresting defendant outside of their house officers manufacture the traffic stop and boxed him in in a sense it could be argued created the inventory search and then made those explicit missions or johnson relies on united states versus the rosko in which officers receive a confidential tip that a truck might be carrying methamphetamine and officers testified it's common knowledge that you can use administrative st search function as a means to search for evidence that's clearly not the case here and i'd like to also address that there's probable cause to search the car officers to verify that the proly was on active parole through both the computer system and calling the yellow head and that allows them to go you can't do this you can do other things but not this it says we don't specifically address the glove compartment and factors to consider and i'll dress them all here favor the government whether the glove box is locked or unlocked it's unlocked the parolees distance to the item then the fund while he may have a reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge standing it's certainly less his reasonable expectation of privacy in a colomba ochs perhaps the store's things in the backseat but likely not going to go in the glove box of someone to decrease remove yes that's right so therefore why is he going to go up but why do they think that he that he in some usual sense of the term has control over the glove box so if the defendant has not doesn't exactly your honor that offended doesn't have control  separating himself from the glove box making it more suspicious that's fine but the problem here is and it's the same problem when you're searching somebody else's house for a parole which is you don't conflicting policy problems which is why the parole conditions don't say you can search anyplace where there probably is and says you can search his house and things under his control because otherwise you're bitching and other people's rights and that's the problem so you have to be somewhat vigilant about that and i think the california supreme court actually was so i just some of the factors instruments and one circuit supports pool search took going backwards to inventory for testified that once he found out the defendant was on license he was required to impound it until the car according to inglewood police department policy and that's what happened now again perhaps even to all motive is permissible but there certainly isn't evidence that the sole motive of the search was investigation clearly distinguishable from u s forces johnson and riley when in a circuit case i think there is testimony that the only recorded evidence officers were searching for drugs and they also brought  dog sniff in that instance so i think the record taken as a whole here looking that is a routine police stop leading to traffic violations require the officers to search the inventory impound and search the vehicle so given the validity of the inventory search and the alternative justification of probable cause to search based on probably status this court should affirm the district court's this missile a motion to do you have twenty nine seconds said backpack and other accessories yeah right it does seem to say that doesn't matter i mean i don't understand how you can have an inventory search without an inventory we seem to have said so i wouldn't say it says it doesn't matter it's just on its own that that's not enough but lack of an inventory plus evidence of an improper motive is exactly what what does show there's an improper search but i was against but as i understand our law is not it isn't plus that if you don't follow the i mean i would say if you don't do an inventory it's not an inventory our initial position was either a failure to do an inventory or pretext would be sufficient to show problem gary our understanding indicates that the failure to do a proper inventory becomes a factor to analyze under the pretext analysis and i just want to point out that in johnson there was a law to impound a policy requiring an inventory search just as we have here and yet because of the combination of a failure to properly inventory and evidence of pretax but there you don't have actual evidence a pretext before the search ever i mean here they just kept at these people on the street they were not looking for yes your honor but they did they never even claimed to be doing an inventory search until way afterwards during the at the hearing when they initially did it they said we were looking for evidence because he was a parolee and because we were arresting him anyway i mean at the scene they at least did and tory for the best day they always but they claim that they were only doing that after they had insurance company