Eh, if he was going to be taken into custody anyway, searching his backpack at that point doesn’t matter due to inevitability. Judge won’t toss it.
Agreed. It was an inventory search of his belongings, which have to be listed and entered into his jail record anyway. It’s standard procedure for defense attorneys to challenge searches, and whoever wrote this anti-female screed is an ass.
I think that the question is whether or not they had sufficient cause to arrest him without the evidence found in the backpack. I don't know enough of the facts to form an opinion about that. Just because he may have resembled someone who committed a crime in another state, that standing alone, without more, does not necessarily make a strong case for probable cause to arrest. If there was no probable cause to make an arrest, then there was no legal grounds upon to search his backpack, or to do an inventory search, as you suggest.
Correct.
Agree. If the backpack is going to be placed into evidence, it has to be searched to inventory its contents. If it is going to be placed into his property at the jail, it has to be searched for the same reason. There is no illegal search issue here.
Plus the constitution protects individuals from “unreasonable” searches and seizures by the government...
can either side prove the search was unreasonable or reasonable ?