United States v. Saul Haro-Salcedo

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a search “conducted for investigatory rather than administrative purposes[] could not properly be characterized as an inventory search”
• concluding evidence “would have” been discovered through proper inventory search (emphasis added)
• upholding vehicle impoundment and noting that neither driver nor passenger “could prove ownership of the vehicle nor provide proof of registration”
• finding impoundment reasonable in “multiple-motivation scenario” where officers impounded vehicle to identify vehicle’s owner and “for further investigation by the DEA”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).