U2forever
vision over visibility
They didn't 'secure' the car because they (LE) didn't know a crime had been committed at that point. The car was locked. T.E. was the registered owner of said car. He was called because the car appeared to be abandoned and had been called to get it. T.E. also didn't know a crime had been committed. (Is the expectation that LE must be psychic?)
This can be addressed with proper questioning by the state:
Q: Officer SoandSo, at the time you called T.E. to let him know a car registered in his name was sitting at PTL, did you know that his daughter had been kidnapped? (No.)
Q: Officer SoandSo, at that time had anyone reported a missing woman, a woman associated with that car? (No.)
Q: Officer SoandSo, at that time had anyone reported hearing any kind of disturbance, a scream, a woman crying, or anything like that? (No.)
Q: Officer SoandSo, was the car locked? (yes). Did you open the car yourself? (no). Did you start touching things in the car? (No) Did you know that the young woman who used that particular car was missing? (no)
Q: Officer SoandSo, when an abandoned vehicle is called in and the registered owner is found and comes to get the car do you seize the car and tow it to the CSI vehicle compound just in case something may have happened to the person who normally drives the car? (No) Why not? (We would only do this if there was a report of a possible crime committed and that would be based on directions from Sgt ThisnThat.)
Reasonable actions and nonactions...
Who's on first...
Sorry, I could not help myself.