Fredericks v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an impoundment is constitutional “only if justified by both a standardized policy and a reasonable, non- pretextual community-caretaking rationale”
• examining a non- exclusive list of factors to determine “whether an impoundment is justified by a reasonable and legitimate, non-pretextual community-caretaking rationale”
• finding impoundment unreasonable in part because “police impounded [defendant’s] vehicle without offering her the opportunity to make alternative arrangements, even though she stated that she was willing to have someone pick up the vehicle on her behalf”
• applying the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius in concluding that, because code provision expressly “authorizes the impoundment of vehicles from public property,” it “does not authorize, and moreover proscribes, the impoundment of vehicles from private lots”
• collecting and categorizing cases of arrested drivers from the federal circuits
• listing alternatives to impoundment as relevant factor for validity of private-property impoundments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).