police desire to have the car towed why is that the first choice and if that's the first choice in the poem the inventory anything and the police don't have to deal with the items of personal personal to put her in the car well again the problem arises is that the trial court did not rule that she can't to the car or that you know that i thought it was just he can't take personal car and since the defendant has no right to the purse it doesn't matter if that was it legal because there's no  wait there forever how long is the wait well the wait different than the wait if they call they have a tow ever shoot they were not able to get a hold of somebody to get the come get them to go get the available the next morning when the train got there and they could go to the wife and take it home you know as well as they get there during business hours which is that was the defense did not do they went to pick up the stated with respect to both defendants bit unfair see only justification for the ultimate hold on the impounded vehicle and subsequent search pursuant to the warrant where the articles discovered during the amatory search of the purse therefore the hole on the vehicle properly license it was it had nothing wrong with it and that the owner of the car was with it indicated she was calling friends to come and get her and get our call licensed private you want to stay with the car they can set the current february with the heater on and you're running outside no danger to them they're adults do you think that would have been reasonable for clues officer to leave an unlicensed driver and a person under the influence with the keys to a vehicle on the side of the road sure if that's what they wanted to do the police don't have any right to stop somebody before committing a crime there was no indication they were going to commit a crime the only indication is they were going to sit there and wait for the friends they had called a friend so he can at this weird point had already been driving a vehicle he had been driving the vehicle and the driver who was stuck to the driver's license so back there was indication that the people in the vehicle willing to commit crimes i don't believe that the police officer can be told the car in anticipation of a crime that has not yet been committed and there's nothing in the law that says that a police officer can come around and say i believe that you're about to drive this car so i'm going to have a toke in it are you saying there's something wrong with a police officer who comes upon us and makes a traffic stop a curse or hurt way in the top company at the scene he conducted contrary to what the state argues in their brief the initial inventory search was conducted right there at the scene on the side of the road and then the total report states very clearly i was released to green there's no reason to believe that because gretchen had drugs in her prayers that there was some kind of other drugs in the car with the other people both the other people were searched when they got to seen one only after the whole they didn't get a search warrant for the home and that's what they needed and that's what the case that's what the supreme court said in chambers versus moroni there's no difference between putting a hold on it or doing a search without a mark so basically what the supreme court says is that deputy smith did a search without warrant when you place said hold on the car and he called the top company told you can't release that card meant even if he comes in with the money and he came there with the money with a licensed driver she called green and green said no they got a hold on the car and indeed deputies smith agreed admitted that he had places hold on our and he had no probable cause to do that you couldn't do it it's a search frankly it sets off and this court can this court can find on th the state challenges that mr ferris had standing or a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle they it's judged by the factors did the defendant exhibit conduct that he had it's objective interest of privacy in the car and the second one is an expectation of privacy something that is reasonable and other words do we as a society protect they act first of all and there are six factors did he have an ownership he did not have an ownership interest he had of the sesame and this and the only licensed driver in the person who had been driving for the majority of the day he was given the keys i'm indy who agreed to give him the keys asked him indeed  belongings they were planning to stay in decatur for a while they loaded up their clothing their toiletries or other personal objects into the trunk of the car lock the trunk of the car and thereby excluding others from the use of the trunk of the car indeed the deputy talked to mindy and she testified that she told him rather that she had nothing in the trunk of a car everything in the trunk belonged comedian dustin did he exhibit an expectation of privacy yes to get he refused consent to search the contraband that were eventually found in the trunk he hid them up in the back of the trunk behind all that he had them so well to exhibit his expectation of privacy that during the inventory search deputies from the didn't find or not anywhere on his record they suspected any kind of contraband in the trunk he wrote that he found calling a bag other things like they had in the trunk but no suspicion at that point in time of the inventory search of any contraband that he had prior use of the area or the property he testified in hearing and this is where the state said he didn't claim ownership that's wrong they claim ownership of the property containing the contraband away from her it wasn't hers it was his beard clearly she was distancing herself from any possession of that knapsack or the items in the trunk and then when they were going back to paris he loaded them back in the trunk put them up for the with clothing locked the trunk they have prior use of the area or property was he legitimately present at the place yes he was legitimately present in the car at all times because he was given the permission and indeed asked by many to do the drive in the car and given the keys by her there's no dissent and they asked did he take normal x caution street protect his privacy interests and again that's hiding the things that he wanted protected in the back behind the clothing so he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car although it was not his car it doesn't have to be as far i cited the cases where passengers have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they're not a mere chaos in europe but when their passenger who stores their personal possessions in the vehicle and that's what it looks all three of the people refuse consent to search now the under florida versus wowza supreme court forbids of police from using an inventory search as routes for general rummaging to discover incriminating evidence that's exactly what was done here if you're reading through the police report if you look at the video japanese smith definitely had some kind of and the gentle he continuously mentions that there are people pupils were tiny he has an indication in his mind crime if they were on drugs there has to be something us independent to raise probable cause to serve the purse there was no consent to take the purse now the judge the testimony was come contradictory that gretchen ups or smith don't take my purse she said she told several times i dusty heard her say don't take my purse and leave it with my friend she didn't want her purse she didn't need it for obvious reasons interestingly enough after the point where deputy smith is privately talking with gretchen in the car he turned off the video and that should be noted i've got it in my brief a place he turns off the video at two different times i'm sorry not the video the audio he turns up the audio at the time when he's talking to gretchen in the car and that could have been the place where she said don't take my purse leave it and in any case there was no consent to take the purse there was no you part mental policy now this is important because he was doing an inventory searching when in the car he looked through it he says that he took the purse pursuant to the inventory search but there has to be a departmental policy there was no department a policy entered into the record that doesn't have to be entered into the record as we know the supreme court said that testimony about the department policy is enough there was was february it was call it wasn't snowy but it was real call out and he didn't think she might need her shoes and she gets out of jail just that she might need her purse why he had an agenda he had no authority to seize the  purse why the so too will search its the us once she's in the police car and she's handcuffed there's no search incident to arrest that's necessary because there was no possibility that there would be evidence of either city i believe the difference comes under arizona versus scamps that says you can't search inside of the car for evidence of the crime once a person's already handcuffed in the car which she was she was handcuffed she had been in the car for quite a while and there was no reason this case is also distinguished from the state's case people vs free us in free us the purse they have the girlfriend that contained the contraband that mr freeh ass was arrested for in this case firas was not arrested more charged with any of the contraband that was found in gretchen's purse that was gretchen's burton totally missed her fears was charged with the contraband that was found in the trunk of the car after the a privacy interest under romila this case is on all fours the defendant requested to tell the vehicle was towed to a private toll lot just like in this and the police release the court said that if they have no longer have any custody interest in the vehicle then in personnel i the court the police went back without a warrant and they searched the car and found a little bit of contraband which resulted in a bigger search of the car finding the bigger amount of contraband and this is exactly what the supreme court held was unconstitutional in chambers whole here was the whole year just like in burma was an illegal hold and there was an illegal seizure of the car a seven hour hold up this car this is unprecedented i searched and i couldn't find anything saying hold a car for seven hours while you wait for a drug sniffing dog mindy by that time her friends had come to sullivan they had the money for the tow the total company  report she called several times saying she was there with the money for the time and a friend to drive it but he refused to release the car to her because he had a hold on smith needed a warrant for the hole now there's no logical nexus between the drugs and gretchen's purse and holding a car for gawd's now it was just merely a hunch he needed a warrant to put the hold on the car smith had an agenda he had a hunch he had an agenda the indicators were that he turned off the audio at critical times that the purse he says he took the purse for gretchen's benefit but he didn't bring the shoes for gretchen's benefit he said that he took the purse for gretchen's benefit but he felt to ask the other occupants if there if there was anything they needed before the  of the car for their benefit so clearly he wasn't thinking about the benefit of the people here he was thinking about getting that car figuring out how to how to get service it was no probable cause for the hold and there was no attempt to even get a warrant to put a hold on he could have at that time onto a mantra straight and said look i've got this purse with contraband in it i have these people who have tiny holes i stop them in the middle of the night i want to warn to put a hold on the car that's all the have to do and you skip that step for expediency and he can't do that the police cannot run it and run around the fourth amendment merely for the expediency of police purposes but argued at page five of their reply brief that since ferris suggested the talkie should be barred from challenging it and they cited people versus fleming fleming as a case where there was a kind santa search not initial illegality which was the seizure and search of the purse and as far as the hole in the car i submit that that was in fact proper under the case aside my that that really does not apply in this particular instance