context: Compliance with procedures merely tends to ensure the intrusion is limited to carrying out the government's caretaking function. This does not mean that inventory searches are always unreasonable when standard procedures are not followed, however.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 831 F.2d 1390, 1394
citation_a.parenthetical: failure of police to complete inventory of arrestee's belongings as policy provided after finding drugs in arrestee's suitcase did not render inventory search unreasonable where police changed plans and decided to transfer arrestee to federal authorities
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Woolbright, 831 F.2d 1390, 1394 (8th Cir.1987) (failure of police to complete inventory of arrestee’s belongings as policy provided after finding drugs in arrestee’s suitcase did not render inventory search unreasonable where police changed plans and decided to transfer arrestee to federal authorities); United States v. Trullo, 790 F.2d 205, 206 (1st Cir.1986); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 816, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (although adherence to procedures shows lack of pretext, deviation from procedures does not prove pretext).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 517 U.S. 806, 816
citation_b.parenthetical: although adherence to procedures shows lack of pretext, deviation from procedures does not prove pretext
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Woolbright, 831 F.2d 1390, 1394 (8th Cir.1987) (failure of police to complete inventory of arrestee’s belongings as policy provided after finding drugs in arrestee’s suitcase did not render inventory search unreasonable where police changed plans and decided to transfer arrestee to federal authorities); United States v. Trullo, 790 F.2d 205, 206 (1st Cir.1986); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 816, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (although adherence to procedures shows lack of pretext, deviation from procedures does not prove pretext).