did not follow the grandview tope policy second in my opinion it really was not an inventory search that was a pretext it was actually a search for evidence of a crime wh the top policy over constitutional level infringement well on a constitutional level and what you'll see or at least least have been the result of requiring some kind of exclusion disabled to constitute another structure to traffic and the person in charge of the vehicle is unable to provide for its removal and at one point three point three is also involved right illegally parked you could also say it was illegally parked but if you'll notice on both of these sections they both fall under the category of abandon the he did not abandon his vehicle he was present if you go over to section two point that depend on what time you measure it i know you say well he's there it's not abandoned but is a kind of abandon when you don't have a driver's license and you don't have this and you think the car stolen isn't it constructively abandon arranged for the tow myself and that he's allowed to do that either sex point well i'm not i'm not sure about that because if you look at two point three which is what you rely on it says yes here means he or she may consult with the owner to obtain a towing firm of their choice assuming that there is a reference back to the owner this is not a very well written policy if time constraints allow and it may well be because your client's car was blocking traffic and unlike having it there overnight now you're starting to get traffic to the morning you might have said look tight constraints don't allow you you had eleven hours to remove your vehicle you simply did not do it now where and kweisi rush hour this is a busy thoroughfare i'm not going to give you another two or three hours to remove your vehicle well he's asleep when they get there go ahead and so i think it's not clear from the record but they kind of make it sound like maybe two maybe three hours yeah right now now back to yeah i'm looking at section two point one and a citizen doesn't have to be the owner citizen requesting assistance in removing their disabled vehicle may request any license tow service located within the city and the department will assist them in making contact labels or headings matter but the first and it matters because it says a band and then you got to look at the heading here disabled vehicle and everyone agrees that your client's car was disabled at the time so headings apply here you got to go to two point three one of two point three two as well in two point three under the disabled vehicles it says that the owner could obtain a tow of their choice he's not the owner he's not and he's not licensed to drive it so he can't that you're not the owner this isn't satisfactory they contact the city's contract remember though that everything in this section is under the heading of a non custody the officers are not taking custody property they're not taking custody of the vehicle i agree with that but if they're to their inventory search they got to the custody right and you got to the if this is not satisfactory which is why i was going to ask you about the owner point takes you if this is not satisfactory if we don't have an order maybe you know you that they can take it you know they can th that's right i think the problem is with the way those topologies specifically operate officers have a choice and it was them to do something that's clearly unconstitutional and if you listen to that they asked him did you know i put all of the times on the on the video time stamp of where the officer says something that is investigating a crime anything that indicates that  forming his community caretaking function to remove a vehicle that was not traffic obstacle on a public roadway in the morning evidence in the record of the vehicles actually having to swerve out of the way where  cited mr green given to traffic citation now if you do one point three point two it has the word and in the middle of it the first part of that huge stress vehicles disabled because this car have been broken down there for several hours now you know the defense says well that this eleven hours came from the statement on the video from the defendant i do or the court to listen to police video here of the colloquy between mr green officer bowl and it is a kaleidoscope for mr green of ever shifting stories of him refusing to provide the most basic information about this are who owns those ar court yes we did so you it you claim one point three point two which is disable and one point three point three which is the obstruction and i usually only to you claim to the district court yet that's what we were cleaning we believe that this is fit within a custody ito situation although this court has raised excellent issues about even if you go to the not custody if you read the definition of that this is an requesting assistance and that certainly wasn't mr green in fact mr green was the opposite he was pushing the officer away but registered to who the owner is that in the policy the fact that the factors you're giving us now which sound good it's kind like jury arguments you know injury cases but is anywhere in this policy well it not not what i just said i do what's the closest thing in the policy to what you said because we don't we have to look at the policy and this year in court so that's important going to that is important the person in charge of the vehicles unable to provide for its removal i think that that fits when you have if you have a person with a car but there is every every reason to doubt the validity of that person's legitimate link to the car i think that under the code policy and also it's  it's not a mechanical application it's substantial compliance i think it's whether you have a situation where an officer is clearly inventing a reason to toll car so he can get into it and i know those have come before the court well that's not the situation here you have an officer who has to tow the car in fact the defense conceded in her argument that the car had to be towed she said that the first part of their argument so there's no dispute that the car was disabled the car had to be towed now at this point before you move on i just wonder why there were really into point one two point three because i wonder i know you say he was being obstinate and he wasn't answering the questions and i agree with you but opposing counsel is also right that police stopped by it was like i really just need a token pany you know i really just want you to help me with that and so you could construe that as requesting assistance in finding a tow company many clearly was not happy about the police being there but way but in this situation in the facts of this mr greene even indicated he was going to call a tow company but then when the officer presence of about who did you call he goes back to my photos you won't give him a all the people who want to have helped me and others are bogus like well you know if you don't have to give me any names but i'm trying to help you sort this situation out we're trying to sort this situation out and you're his complete bus that kind of go by that it's creating a traffic obstruction it's a public safety hazard and and yes i think we could agree that i think this is very common you know unfortunately in the topologies  it could be worded better but the issue is whether or not substantial compliance whether there's a speed whether officer baldwin's actions are sufficiently battered to a standard standard standardized police procedure and here i think on all of the facts on the evidence of the encounter on the video and the testimony he was officially fetter he wasn't just decided i'm going to tow this vehicle this vehicle been parked up on and a driveway in a public place where the owner of the house but think i'm fine with the car there well then you know we're not even see any here because you know that would have been an issue but that's totally not the issue here that this actually is a classic case of a police officer performing community care take in order to help ensure the public safety of getting this car off the street this car that was at the hood of the trunk up they were told was a door open which again goes back to the fact whether it was eleven hours it would been there for several hours the defendant was asleep and again it just comes back to the fact that of survival and needed to get this  not of the time but i would like to point to three specific places in the record the officer testified that the vin number came back and it didn't store it registered anybody that's in correct nine twenty eight fifty five on the video the dispatcher nine thirty to forty so he does to say who the owner is there are six different places between nine thirty nine and ten o six in which he asked to be allowed to call a tow service and at the very end of it he says i just needed the number of a place to call if he's got a dead alternator or a dead battery it makes sense he can't go why fire on his phone and look a place up on his own page fifty of the suppression hearing transcript officer admits that there was in the glove box if you go inspection an application for title and the title itself he didn't check that the entire time that he's dealing with mr green he doesn't even get bother to get into the glove box even though mr green said the titles in there go look at it thank you