he was stopped for a traffic violation by the garland county sheriff's deputy justin parker placed under arrest for a warrant on a failure to appear out of a juvenile court guarding his son during the pat down deputy parker found money and then subsequently found more money in a pair of pants in mr maurice's truck at mr maurice's direction martin's towing was on were it to tow his truck but the deputy parker search to be called prior to it being towed at issue today is whether the search was done in violation of the th amendment mr morris contends that it was and that he maintained constructive control of his truck when the towing company he chose was going to pick up this vehicle for him and the th amendment of the constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures does to be constitutional zaatari search must be done pursuant to standard police procedures and for the purpose of protecting the car and its contents the police may exercise some discretion to impound a vehicle but that has to be exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity as we will what's relationship it's the defendant's c tow and the police look into the vehicle and identification notes of potential countries do you mean when he asks for his phone creating the potential for oh he identified him a little bit earlier than not because when he mr morris didn't have to just identification on him and so when told him he was that before they went into his pay at in the vehicle is when they identified him as the person to be arrested because there was a warrant from the horror s to well so when they manage there was the relationship and so he was i believe already inside the police vehicle when they went to get the money out of his pants and  ok well deputy parker while he believed he was doing the right thing he was attempting to be diligent protect the community his belief was that because mr morris had too much cash on him that there must be some nefarious purpose i feel that this is a dangerous precedent to subject citizens to a search if they carry cash further his decision to search the field goal was actually not in compliance with the written there were different provisions and alternatives on when they would tones of you call and i think the key phrase being when if the mix has to be a control of the garland county sheriff's office come our covers this area that it's not my understanding of this case that maybe my colleagues case in the next one is still policy did so i may be getting them confused it on the chief question you know when you when you go through the policy i don't know that i agree with you but i want if you're constructive and out give you a chance to get through the policy but the constructive possession strikes me as wrong because it is true that he picked the towing company and but i don't think because i mean it wasn't his choice to tow the vehicle it was the police to choice to tow the vehicle i'm not sure that he you can say he maintained constructive possession the reason why it was  different from the standard fare in the tory search case i think if looking at the policy when you look under section four dollars and that's where it's talking about the arrest of a driver i don't think they're going to impound or take possession of his vehicle when when they give him the opportunity to select the towing company our belief is that he can also direct where it's towed like he could have it towed to his home so where do i point out so are they tell in this in this case they tell it to the police impound lot no they when he when the officer does the search before the tow truck gets some space separate where they put that mr harris may know that is acting the argument you're making and i didn't interrupt you but i think the argument you're making is that somehow towing the will is analogous what he picks the tow company is analogous to when he responsible and reasonable person is on the scene who can take the car away somehow there's an analogy there and i guess my question for you is is there any i mean i understand you're going to t any precedent to support that either and our circuit or anywhere nationwide not that i'm aware of the only pressed i can think of is that our our press if it looks to whether it was reasonable within the car with in the tow policy because here we are also arguing that it's pretextual because he finds what he deems to be too much money on the person in the pants which is also brought out during our hearing on that the suppression issue and brought out by opposing counsel he figures that's too much money there that ra suspicion he admits that on the stage and then he does the search and then when he does an inventory albeit not on the proper form it's just a very limited list if you're really trying to protect the property of the defendant in this case and i'm running into my rebuttal time i'd like to reserve the remainder your hon his pocket that point mr morse in the patrol vehicle even request a deputy to go back into his truck and and get his cell phone and more cash so  that point they tell company had already been caught in this bit was going to be towed pursuit of the policy it was on private property mr morse was the sole occupant of that vehicle and therefore the investigative mode no court did find that the officer didn't strictly comply with his total record in that he didn't list the condition of certain items where they were specifically and he does put two words on a report misled these tools plus in that case there was a clear investigative mode but that's not the situation here now in terms of the  have a reasonable person do it i don't have one with me but i want to tell this to my mom's house i mean could you then do the search under those circumstances and again i think the policy is is going to beat us on that that particular point i think there's other things that the defendant is i don't think there was any other option at that point  thank you i want to go back to mr harris talking about because there are interest in cash our point is that with out to you parker making an assumption that that amount of mohammad case to allow this constitutional violation to go forward unpunished permits officers to legally search persons when they subjectively believe that a person is carrying whatever that officer determines to be an excessive amount of we don't believe so we think it didn't get that to that point because d t f arrived on the scene because the officer went ahead and searched the vehicle but our argument is that he could have directed the tow company to tow is car to his house his arrest had to do with a failure to appear for his juvenile it had nothing to do with drugs and it was simply and i think if you look at some of the briefing and the transcript from the