Situation: Police Department "A" investigates a crash where the driver at fault is permanently paralyzed, minor injuries to another vehicle's occupants. "A" does not pursue charges on this paralyzed driver. The mother of this at fault driver raises all kinds of cain due to insurance issues saying her son was never driving "his" vehicle at the time of the crash. This mother is a former employee of "A" and says there is an inappropriate and biased investigation done. "A" then requests police department "B" to conduct an independent investigation and to conclude who was driving the kids car.

Dept "A" impounds the car in a lot that is not secured during the day, accessible by anyone walking by. The request for dept "B" comes 20days after the crash. Investigators for "B" are never told about any pre-exsisting search warrant or verbal/written consent from the vehicle's owner. Also note this department is not even within the same District Attorney's jurisdiction. Investigators knowing this can easily lead into a civil action if not a criminal one later even though they are told no one is being charged ask for a search warrant to collect any evidence supposedly in this car. Their commander orders they collect evidence out of this vehicle, even after they advised the "boss" there is no "Crash Exception" to a search warrant. This boss thinks that a vehicle crash has no reason to have a search warrant be issued to collect evidence. These investigators collect this evidence and leave.

Question: Did Dept. "B" violate the vehicle owners constitutional rights under the fourth amendment or were they acting within their legal authority when they collected possible evidence that can be used later at a civil or criminal trial? I know the officer's ordered to do the act will have qualified immunity status, but should this dept have had the proper search warrant? And if the investigator in charge that asked about the warrant be disciplined later for insubordination does he have an out?

Big one for my first question around here.

Police department B has no legal standing, only the police department where the accident actually happens has any legal standing to even investigate.

Officers of Dept B can be hired off duty to investigate to testify as private people.

No investigation B does could even be used in court, since they did not have a standing, unless department A turned the accident over to them.

Example city police turns investigation over to county police, or turns it over to highway patrol.

Car is impounded, thus it is still evidence of the accident and no search warrant is needed to investigate for the accident. For Dept A who is the one that has it impounded.

Dept B had to go outside their jurisdiction if they went into dept A jurisdiction, and in fact can not function as a police officer outside of that jurisdiction without special exception.

Anything dept B did would not be entered into evidence, and the department violated many rules of conduct. No real rights were violated since the car is impounded and in police custody and evidence. But the impounding police department would have to have given permission

If I understood all of you're a and Bs correct

LOL... you kept them all in order. This particular state can not impound a car unless it is being seized pursuant to a drug forfeiture and/or the crash is a felony DUI (Death or Third Offense) or ownership is in question. I assume that anything recovered would be inadmissable in court.

Not sure the exact state, but cars illegally parked can be impounded (towed) and "not searched" but the contents inventoried. But then if something illegal is found it was during a legal inventory.

But yes, everything should be inadmissable in court in fact I am not even sure how they could enter them, since it was not their DA to turn them over to. Then the entire chain of evidence issues.

Now of course they can try, so the difference will be, at what point is what evidence found by who.