With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous. Because Officer Gillespie did not comply with KCPD inventory policy and because her testimony demonstrates pretext, we hold that the search cannot be upheld under the inventory search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The Government argues that the inventory should be upheld because, as the district court concluded, Officer Gillespie was required to impound the vehicle under KCPD standard policy because she “believed” Taylor’s vehicle had been used in the commission of a crime. The Government’s argument that the inventory was valid because the impoundment was valid conflates two separate issues. The validity of an impoundment is not dispositive of the validity of an inventory search. See Marshall, 986 F.2d at 1174 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we have rejected the argument that

A: holding police officers were justified in impounding and conducting inventory search which extended to the trunk of the vehicle where vehicle was abandoned and believed to contain stolen goods
B: holding that even though an inventory search was invalid the vehicle was properly impounded
C: holding that inventory search could not be condemned insofar as department policy permitted opening box for the standard purposes of inventory searches
D: holding warrantless search of defendants automobile four days after impoundment was permissible under requirements of fourth amendment and state constitution where officers had probable cause to search vehicle when it was impounded and that probable cause continued between the time of the impoundment and the search
B.