Colorado v. Bertine

Supreme Court of United States
479 U.S. 367 (1987)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a police officer from opening a closed container found within a lawfully impounded vehicle and inventorying its contents, provided the inventory is conducted in good faith pursuant to standardized police procedures.

Facts:

On February 10, 1984, a Boulder, Colorado police officer arrested Steven Lee Bertine for driving his van while under the influence of alcohol.
Following the arrest, the police decided to impound Bertine's van.
Before the van was towed, a backup officer conducted an inventory of the van's contents in accordance with local police procedures.
During the inventory, the officer found a closed backpack directly behind the front seat.
The officer opened the backpack and the containers inside it.
Inside the backpack's containers, the officer discovered controlled substances, cocaine paraphernalia, and a large amount of cash.

Procedural Posture:

Steven Lee Bertine was charged in a Colorado trial court with drug offenses and driving under the influence.
Bertine filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his backpack, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
The trial court granted the motion to suppress, but based its ruling on the Colorado State Constitution.
The State of Colorado, as the appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the trial court's suppression order, but it based its decision on the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, finding the search unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a police inventory search of a closed container found within a lawfully impounded vehicle violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures when the search is conducted pursuant to standardized police procedures?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

No. A police inventory search of a closed container found within a lawfully impounded vehicle does not violate the Fourth Amendment when conducted according to standardized criteria and not in bad faith. Inventory searches are a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement and are justified by strong governmental interests, including protecting the owner's property, insuring against claims of lost or stolen property, and guarding the police from danger. These interests outweigh the individual's Fourth Amendment interests, even if less intrusive means of securing the property exist. Requiring police to make fine distinctions about which containers can be opened would be unreasonable; a single, familiar standard is essential to guide officers conducting these routine administrative procedures.

Concurring - Justice Blackmun

No. The inventory search was permissible, but it is critical to emphasize that such searches are only constitutional if they are conducted pursuant to standardized police procedures that eliminate officer discretion. The absence of discretion is the underlying rationale for the inventory exception, as it ensures these searches are not used as a pretext for general criminal investigations. In this case, the search is valid because the trial court found that standard police procedures mandated the opening of closed containers in every impounded vehicle.

Dissenting - Justice Marshall

Yes. The search of the closed backpack violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not conducted according to standardized procedures and gave the police unfettered discretion. The Boulder police directive allowed officers to choose between three options (release to a third party, park and lock, or impound), with only the impound option allowing a search of closed containers, making the decision to search completely discretionary. Furthermore, the governmental interests are overstated; a secure impound lot mitigates claims of theft, and the owner was present to make other arrangements. A person's expectation of privacy in a backpack is substantially greater than in an automobile's glove compartment, and the justifications present in station-house searches, like preventing contraband in jail, are absent here.

Analysis:

This decision significantly expands the scope of the inventory search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. It extends the principles from South Dakota v. Opperman (inventory of a car's glove compartment) and Illinois v. Lafayette (inventory of an arrestee's shoulder bag at the station) to closed containers found within a vehicle. The Court's rejection of a 'least intrusive means' analysis provides law enforcement with greater latitude in conducting such searches, prioritizing administrative efficiency and standardized rules over a case-by-case assessment of privacy interests. This precedent solidifies the rule that as long as a police department has a standard, reasonable policy for inventory searches, evidence found during such a search will likely be admissible, even if discovered within a private container.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Colorado v. Bertine (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature