next case is united states he williams and began processing the arrest and fingerprinting mr williams during that process mr williams asked to make a phone call detective with torrey overheard his phone call and something about it arouses suspicions he spoke to his partner and he spoke to other officers and then he and his partner detective fiction detective fichter went back downstairs to do a second search that second search was done without a warrant and it was to investigate these officers suspicions about mr williams that second search was an illegal search in violation of the fourth amendment to characterize that second search as an inventory search is undermined the fourth amendment inventory searches or exempt from the fourth amendment requirement of probable cause or warrant and or warrant precisely because they're not done for the purpose of investigations they're supposed to be done in the ordinary routine course of the police safeguarding people's property in various to avoid being accused of to investigate when they went back for the second and the second look at the car second search was solely for the purpose of investigation that is the fourth amendment violation it wasn't his if in the middle of the first search they develop some sort of suspicion while they were looking around and they might have had a mixed motive the second search was soley to investigators suspicious the district court found that the detective that he thought a second search would be prudent because he might have overlooked something of value there sure but found that credible testimony but we have to find that credibility determination erroneous to adopt your you know about is that he testifies about the first inventory search and then they go back not because they forgot to search some areas it's not as if the oh i forgot to look in the back see i forgot to look under the hood or forgot to look under the truck because i looked in all those places he went back because the suspicion that there was some contraband and he spoke to detect effector and he spoke to other members of his gang squad and then they went downstairs and while they were searching they call detective preacher on over to help and saw what the magistrate judge and district judge seemed to turn everything on is a detective britain was a part of the first search and may not have know about but he is just the agent of the two detectives who are going back to do a second system make a difference right that shouldn't make a difference right i mean i'm agreeing with you i think that that and if he is acting as an agent of the other officers and they are conducting a search for the purpose of finding criminal evidence that does implicate whether this is a valid inventory search  rage and he was not going to search the court he was coming to the precinct they were standing by the car and they called him over if he had been part of the first team and had popped open the console and found the gun on the first go around with that have been  special kind of screws in the console and the detective retired was particularly alert to the possibility of hidden compartments it wasn't a hidden compartment he forced open he forced open the structure of the cons investigatory search the thing about having a standard procedure is that it's standard everybody is treated the same you're not investigating based on a particular suspicions what detective britten testified is this is his experience he didn't testify about the policy and the policy is in the record it's on pages thirty eight the n y p d surpassing it was it's on page thirty eight to forty thirty nin it says you can force open a truck a glove compartment these are areas that are normally these are never designed for storage or followed by etc yes yes this is an example but there are examples are places that are designed to be used by the owner or user of a car for storage not someplace where some wily criminal might find to store things you can pop off various parts of a car lost memory or plastic and if you are why only in you clever in your body parts person in your mechanic yes you can do these things but that's an investigative search based on individual suspicions if they had a warrant they could do all those things but yes you put your thought process is going to move us on to another so yes but it's a standard i having a standard procedure means that you apply this to everybody you're not looking for crimes about a particular person you're not you're just doing it as your routine process of safeguarding property and you don't tear apart places in an automobile that are designed for use for storage by the owner user yes and i ask you to address the evidence that was that your client was a member of a street gang and that he would be willing to help  trials no it wasn't him in the other trials and also in the other trials the statements the statement the point to is particularly significant here because the first two juries were able to hear the full context of his statement they were hear if you hear the explanation for why his confession might not be a confession why it might not be reliable it gave him a motive and it's the full context we're just talking about just a full sentences there's a question and the answer and you know usually when you charge a jury you tell the jury it's a question any answer the c evidence well they're just giving answers and he gives the impression that they just gave him the miranda warnings and he said it's mark and this all defense calls was printed to say it was a conversation but nothing specific the conversation c do you want a cup of coffee do you want do you want water but the juries were told well he first claimed he didn't know about the gun and was simply bringing the car back to his girlfriend across friend why would that be so helpful if you got  office of in says oh it's your girlfriend's he is saying oh you're blaming her it's her first implicating her in the crime and then he says no no no no it's my it's my vets when he admits to it is that question or you're saying it's hers no valid is the question in answer very is the evidence and that's what this jury was not permitted to hear the first two juries work and they hung eight to six for acquittal the first jury six to six split in the second jury but this jury wasn't allowed to exercise its truth on the function and to hear the full context of the statement to consider whether or not it was real and whether it was truly a confession or just somebody cover and your position as to evidence that he was a member of a in getting firearms or drugs that's future and him being member of streaking is not particular to this often there was a firearm found in a car it's not necessarily means your gang member it's  good morning on earth tony had jar for the government i'd like to address me please the court i'd like to address the defendant's first claim first the defendant's argument misapplies the law as to inventory searches detective le torrey testified and the magistrate judge credited the testimony that he returned to the car because he believed he missed something of value whether that be contraband or something else that should have been vouched for safekeeping this fall squarely within what the supreme court and this court has considered to be the proper justification for an inventory search to account for property in a vehicle while his lawfully in police custody and i'm finding that just difficult to accept i mean he went before so there was nothing in plain view they were going to have to be looking for something else there was nothing there was no part of the car that they had failed to search that it wasn't going to be require some further effort it  sounds much more like an investigation to me than looking for something that they didn't see before so how can you explain why the road they they had missed something in the cartridge karni they had missed that area of the consul which detective bratton testified he had searched many times before and in his view and which the judge credited that was part of a standard inventory search the fact payables yes your honor and just just to clarify my adversaries  arguments it wasn't a forced dinner to brighten so it was three plastic clips and this was testimony the judge credited that they were easy to pop open they required no real force nor tool and so the idea that this is a forced open that cause dispositive here in the question of bad faith or investigative purpose is where the cop the officers would have not had inventoried the car in the first instance had they not had that motive so for example in florida v wells which is cited in both appellant an and napoli's brief the police officer in that case testified that he asked his superior whether the car should be inventoried or impounded at all the bad faith that courts have been concerned with in this context doesn't refer to possibly there's something left of value in the car that squarely within what inventory search is supposed to do and that's what courts believe justifies the exception to the warrant requirement  what courts are concerned with in this case are are cases in where law enforcement does an inventory search where it otherwise would not have in the first instance there are any cases where there has been repeated inventory searches argument is that it has to be reasonable if you overhear a conversation there's something i got the impression listening in there was something of value left in the car that might be investigatory but it's also completely reasonable to say we may have missed something and we need to keep a record of it so there were still of that with inventory purpose being served by going back and taking a second look yes i think that that is the purpose of the inventory search exception to th context where they would be no argument that you had probable cause to search the car for investigative purposes there's no probable cause to search you would still need to do that inventory search because you have a basis for thinking it may have missed something of value in the car which is important for many reasons your honor as you say both to ensure that valuables are safeguarded and appropriately accounted for and to make as a public safety matter where the cars and police custody can i ask you to address how the seventh came in  that he was a member of the street gang yes your honor the statement that was introduced initially was the defendant's pure statement i had the gun in the subsequently the the statement i had the gun that bears statement devoid of any context was a statement of some kind of metaphysical fact that the defendant i didn't even see the knowledge the defendant actually knew that that the gun was in the consul of the car where on this the only party to have made arguments that in summation regarding the defendant's affiliation with gang members was defense counsel and i'd like to just point the court to that argument in summation which is in on page one twenty five of the government's exhibit government appendix defense counsel argued again the gun was found in the passenger side of the car we don't know who else was in the car then makes reference the governments the photographs the government put into evidence which there was not objected to on the basis of rule for three and continued but you know what i can also suggest that there are other suspects just to talk about the renter of the car and states for all we know one of these guys could have had the car or driven it or how did it in their possession or were in the car at such a time and place where they could put a gun and the consul if this was a tactical decision your honor not to object to the pictures and the defense counsel made active use of these arguments at trial and it was not a fruitless defense because the d n a evidence at the trial your honor excluded the defendant as a contributor to th to the d n a found on the gun and so that was a strategic choice and i see there was a strategic choice and so the defense has waived the his objection to the admission of the facebook photographs and as the statement the defendant made ample use of that evidence at trial and could you address the district court's determination to exclude the portion of the of the defendant statement that he sought to introduce that he  knowledge of my gun and bringing the car back to the girl my girlfriend yes judge livingston that that's part that's all part of the one ones statement to the agents correct it was the initial correct and then they were followed by the admission very short period of time it's all one snippet of conversation it is your honor but the law is quite clear on this that when in truth when offered by a defendant his own hearsay statements words don't explain the right because the rule of completeness is we've interviewed in the circuit you have to be you have to be able to put in the statement to complete the statement that the government is proffered if in fairness you need to consider both so i don't think there's a hearsay bar is certainly your honor if that both parts of the statement in order to understand what the government is proffering as judge that initial denial does not explain or clarify the subsequent statement the statement the gun wasn't mine doesn't explain or clarify i had the gun there is no the rule of completeness doesn't compel the admission of that that statement because it doesn't serve to do it it's merely a denial of the subsequent statement and so and i'll note your honor the the other the irony of this argument so the government is arguing i needed we need to put in i am a gang member i hang out with gang members because otherwise i had the gun will be interpreted in a metaphysical way to me you know only it's in my possession it's around me some way but it's not really mine and yet the government is standing up and saying you can't put in the first half of the statement were  suggest it's my girlfriend's he's all this evidence when the got when the defense says we need that part of the statement because you know that shows what when he said i had the gun it's real meaning was he standing up for his girlfriend true on of the state that when offered by the defendant the rule of completeness it must clarify or explain the statement and your honor there is case law that makes clear that these initial false it's called troy's initial denials are not among the types of statements that extend to explain or clarify subsequent statements particularly where the renter of the car testified at this trial that she was not in fact the defendant's girlfriend that admission of that testimony would have been harmless thank your hon honor they were going back to do any safekeeping functions the second time because they forced open a part of the court it isn't there isn't designed to open it isn't designed for use by an identifies places that are used in design for storage by the design glove compartment of the truck you look in the back seat around their three don't talk about the strike that's what you do when you have a warrant you have probable cause you can do those in that case the second officer who did the search was unsure whether the first officer who conducted the search the second officer thought he interrupted the the first officer in his procedure and the first officer hadn't done the inventory search their third case the race case in the district of georgia or in any case the inventory search was done on one day several days later they instituted forfeiture proceedings and as for part of their forfeiture proceeding the police there did an inventory because that's what they do when they forfeit course it's four point three their argument about the fence counsel summation somehow the physical also fits councils defense was crippled crippled by the fact the complete statement wasn't putting crippled by the fact that he was tarred as a gang member the defense counsel was simply trying to make the best use of the best defense for  whose case was critical because they didn't put in his statement they put in a snippet they didn't put in the question that eliciting answer they just put in a statement that misled the jury and misled by you the prior trials the full statement that full statement was admitted in the prior to trial the jury was able to exercise their true finding function and the idea that because their witness says she's not his girlfriend that's a jury question that's for the jurors to find they had some kind of relationship because he has all the rental agreement he apparently been in an accident in a prior record and he's back on the agreement so and now he's accused of a crime so yes she distances and so herself from him but that's for the jury to decide that's not is if they say well she's not so therefore analysts that the prosecutor in this case interfered with the jurors for truth finding fact finding function and that's