Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Colorado v. Bertinegreen2 sentences2022(Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 374 ; Williams, at p. 761.) But “the action taken must nonetheless be reasonable in light of the justification for the impound and inventory exception to the search warrant requirement.” (Williams, at pp. 761-762.) When the impound decision is not reasonable, the resulting inventory search also is not reasonable. 2006(People v. Aguilar (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1053 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 246 ].) Although a police officer is not required to adopt the least intrusive course of action in deciding whether to impound and search a car (Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367, 374 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 739 , 107 S.Ct. 738 ] (Bertine)), the action taken must nonetheless be reasonable in light of the justification for the impound and inventory exception to the *762 search warrant requirement. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Aguilargreen2 sentences2006(People v. Aguilar (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1053 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 246 ].) Although a police officer is not required to adopt the least intrusive course of action in deciding whether to impound and search a car (Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367, 374 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 739 , 107 S.Ct. 738 ] (Bertine)), the action taken must nonetheless be reasonable in light of the justification for the impound and inventory exception to the *762 search warrant requirement. 2006(People v. Aguilar (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1053 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 246 ].) Although a police officer is not required to adopt the least intrusive course of action in deciding whether to impound and search a car (Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367, 374 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 739 , 107 S.Ct. 738 ] (Bertine)), the action taken must nonetheless be reasonable in light of the justification for the impound and inventory exception to the *762 search warrant requirement. | 1 | 1 |
Florida v. Jimenogreen2 sentences2006Reasonableness is “[t]he touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.” (Florida v. Jimeno (1991) 500 U.S. 248, 250 [ 114 L.Ed.2d 297 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 ].) Morton, the trial court, and respondent relied upon Vehicle Code section 22651, subdivision (h)(1), as authority for impounding appellant’s car. 2006Reasonableness is “[t]he touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.” (Florida v. Jimeno (1991) 500 U.S. 248, 250 [ 114 L.Ed.2d 297 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 ].) Morton, the trial court, and respondent relied upon Vehicle Code section 22651, subdivision (h)(1), as authority for impounding appellant’s car. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2026Reasonableness is ‘the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.’ ” 6 (People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756 , 761–762 (Williams).) “The question is ‘whether a decision to impound or remove a vehicle . . . was reasonable under all the circumstances.’ ” (People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 52 .) 6 Section 22650, subdivision (b) similarly provides: “Any removal of a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and [s]ection 13 of [a]rticle I of the California Constitution, and shall be reasonable and subject to the limits set forth in Fourth Amendm 2026Reasonableness is ‘the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.’ ” 6 (People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756 , 761–762 (Williams).) “The question is ‘whether a decision to impound or remove a vehicle . . . was reasonable under all the circumstances.’ ” (People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 52 .) 6 Section 22650, subdivision (b) similarly provides: “Any removal of a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and [s]ection 13 of [a]rticle I of the California Constitution, and shall be reasonable and subject to the limits set forth in Fourth Amendm | 3 | 2014–2026 |
People v. Duong
green
2 sentences2026Reasonableness is ‘the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.’ ” 6 (People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756 , 761–762 (Williams).) “The question is ‘whether a decision to impound or remove a vehicle . . . was reasonable under all the circumstances.’ ” (People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 52 .) 6 Section 22650, subdivision (b) similarly provides: “Any removal of a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and [s]ection 13 of [a]rticle I of the California Constitution, and shall be reasonable and subject to the limits set forth in Fourth Amendm 2026Reasonableness is ‘the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.’ ” 6 (People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756 , 761–762 (Williams).) “The question is ‘whether a decision to impound or remove a vehicle . . . was reasonable under all the circumstances.’ ” (People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 52 .) 6 Section 22650, subdivision (b) similarly provides: “Any removal of a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and [s]ection 13 of [a]rticle I of the California Constitution, and shall be reasonable and subject to the limits set forth in Fourth Amendm | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Halajian v. D & B Towing
green
2 sentences2026(Halajian v. D & B Towing (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 .) “Although a police officer is not required to adopt the least intrusive course of action in deciding whether to impound and search a car [citation], the action taken must nonetheless be reasonable in light of the justification for the impound and inventory exception to the search warrant requirement. 2026(Halajian v. D & B Towing (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 .) “Although a police officer is not required to adopt the least intrusive course of action in deciding whether to impound and search a car [citation], the action taken must nonetheless be reasonable in light of the justification for the impound and inventory exception to the search warrant requirement. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.