Illegal Firearm Charge Dismissed: Challenging an Unlawful Search

In this case, a routine traffic stop escalated into a serious firearm charge. The police claimed they were following standard procedure, but Luke Woods attorneys identified that the search was a violation of the client's Fourth Amendment rights. By proving the officers used a procedural loophole to conduct an illegal search, we secured a full dismissal before the case ever went to trial.

The Challenge

A young man was stopped for speeding and was unable to provide proof of insurance. Because the officers could not enter the vehicle without consent—which the client properly refused—they decided to impound the car and conduct an "inventory search."

During this search, officers discovered an illegal firearm, leading to serious criminal charges. However, the circumstances raised red flags:

• Refusal of Consent: The client explicitly denied permission to search the car.
• The Pretext: The officers used the "inventory" process as a subterfuge—a disguise—to conduct an investigatory search they otherwise had no legal right to perform.

Our Strategic Approach

1. Filing a Motion to Suppress

• We immediately filed a Motion to Suppress, arguing that the evidence (the firearm) was the "fruit of the poisonous tree" because it was obtained through an unconstitutional search.
• We argued that the officers were not conducting a genuine inventory to protect property, but were instead searching for evidence of a crime without a warrant or probable cause.

2. Scrutinizing Police Policy

• Inventory searches must be conducted strictly according to written departmental policy to be legal. We demanded the State produce the specific police department policy regarding vehicle impoundment and inventory.
• Upon review, the policy proved that the officers deviated from standard procedure. They had not followed the mandatory steps required for a lawful inventory search.

3. Forcing the State's Hand

• We prepared to argue at a hearing that the search was a sham designed to bypass the warrant requirement.
• Confronted with their own policy documents and our legal analysis, the State realized the search would be ruled illegal.

The Outcome

Before the suppression hearing could take place, the State chose not to contest our motion.

• The evidence of the firearm was suppressed (ruled inadmissible).
• Without evidence, the State dismissed all charges.
• The client walked away with no criminal conviction.

Why This Case Matters

• Police must follow their own rules. An inventory search cannot be used as an excuse to snoop for evidence. If they don't follow the policy, the search is illegal.
• "No" means No. The client’s refusal to consent to the search was critical. It forced the police to rely on the inventory justification, which ultimately failed.
• Details win cases. By digging into the administrative policies of the police department, we found the technical leverage needed to win.