Posted on 09/09/2025 5:41:58 AM PDT by Red Badger
Of course, if there’s probable cause. The poster I was replying to seemed to think because it was a high-end car, they should have searched it.
Once a crime is suspected, everything changes.
I merely pointed out, lots cannot just randomly search impounded vehicles out of curiosity.
Remains found in the FRONT TRUNK ……
The front trunk of a Tesla is about large enough for a 5-6 year old child.
An adult body would have to be mangled beyond belief to it there.
D4vid? How is that pronounced?
Ziploc is always best.
The network that did the spot on the car said:
“Officers responded to the 1000 block of N. Mansfield Avenue shortly before 12:30 p.m. Monday to a report of a foul odor coming from an impounded vehicle, according to LAPD.”
The odor created a suspicion of something wrong by being there. It was in the front trunk, not the back. The smell of substances like chemicals used in manufacturing illegal drugs (e.g., methamphetamines) or the odor of decomposition associated with a deceased body would be treated differently. These distinct odors can provide a stronger basis for a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires probable cause for a search warrant. While law enforcement officers can conduct warrantless vehicle searches under certain exceptions, they must still satisfy the probable cause standard. A hunch or general suspicion is not enough; officers must be able to articulate specific facts—including the foul odor and any other contributing factors—that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime is being committed. But finding a dead body while doing an inventory search is easily part of the need.
Most of the information concerning odor in a vehicle is for grass. It sometimes gets mixed in with other odors in the law.
wy69
” Seems a little strange that a holding lot would store a vehicle on its lot, especially one of this amount of cost, without going through the inventory of what’s in the car before they took control or as soon as they got it on the lot.”
Do you even see what I responded to?
They can’t “go through” the car when they bring it in. They can only record what is visible from outside the vehicle. I was in the towing business, and am totally versed on what is legal. Yes, after the smell, and suspicion of a crime, then law enforcement can intervene, not the impound lot.
“...not the impound lot.”
But the cops wouldn’t know about the odor unless the towing company or the holding lot informed them of it. So one way or another, the search would have been legally performed.
wy69
Yes, but this was your comment:
“before they took control or as soon as they got it on the lot.”
They had no legal right to go through that vehicle, until the probable cause arose. It probably didn’t raise any attention, until a few days out in the lot.
“It probably didn’t raise any attention, until a few days out in the lot.”
That we don’t know. But it did happen that way as the odor caused enough concern being a dead animal smell that it was searched.
“PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY GIVE OFFICERS PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK. OFFICERS SHOULD SEARCH TRUNKS ONLY WHEN THEY ARE AWARE OF ARTICULABLE FACTS THAT WOULD ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT SEIZABLE ITEMS ARE IN THE TRUNK.”
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/warrantless-vehicle-searches-california
Sorry about the capitals, the Abstract was written that way and I patched and pasted it for you to see.
In addition:
The Supreme Court held in Opperman that it was generally ok for police to conduct these inventory searches if they are taking possession of a motor vehicle. First, they said again that we have less of a right to privacy in our vehicles than we do in our homes. Second, they also said it was reasonable to expect police to make a list of what’s in a car they have in their possession. Because of those two things, they held that inventory searches are constitutional, so long as the car is actually and properly in the possession of the police.
Whether the odor was determined at the hookup scene or in the lot, it tipped off the people at the lot and a search was accomplished by someone, possibly the police. But if the police did it during an inventory search, and found it, it would have stood up in court.
wy69
All very good points.
I don’t recall the article mentioning the reason for the initial impoundment, but I do know one thing...most tow drivers are very aware, street-wise, about the vehicles they tow. Not one driver I know, would tow that car, if it smelled of a dead anything, animal or human, until they had the police check it over.
I don’t think the odor was detected at the time of the initial impound order, in fact, I’d bet on it.
“I don’t think the odor was detected at the time of the initial impound order, in fact, I’d bet on it.”
You may be a far more knowledgeable person on car odors than I am as you were in the business of towing. But I’ll bet I have a little more experience on decaying bodies from the time I was in southeast Asia in the late 60’s. An odor I’ll never forget.
What’s even worse is when I was stationed at the nav school at Mather in south Sacramento. The business that controlled the destruction of animal bodies was the Sacramento County Animal Services. They had a pet crematory, really just a furnace, just outside of the fence at Mather in what was then Rancho Cordova and they used it every two weeks. Made my stomach turn when they fired it up and used it as the odor was noticeable for miles on a windy day. Hated that.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.