Florida v. Wells
495 U.S. 1 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment does not permit police to open closed containers during an inventory search of an impounded vehicle unless they are following a standardized, official policy that regulates such actions to prevent the search from becoming a pretext for a general evidence-gathering mission.
Facts:
- A Florida Highway Patrol trooper stopped Robert Wells for speeding.
- After detecting the smell of alcohol, the trooper arrested Wells for driving under the influence (DUI).
- Wells agreed to accompany the trooper to the station for a breathalyzer test.
- The trooper informed Wells that his car would be impounded and obtained Wells' permission to open the trunk.
- At the impoundment facility, an inventory search of the vehicle was conducted.
- The search revealed two marijuana cigarette butts in an ashtray and a locked suitcase in the trunk.
- At the trooper's direction, employees of the facility forced open the locked suitcase.
- Inside the suitcase, a garbage bag containing a large quantity of marijuana was discovered.
Procedural Posture:
- Wells was charged with possession of a controlled substance in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court denied Wells' motion to suppress the marijuana evidence seized during the inventory search.
- Wells entered a plea of nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- On appeal by Wells, the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District reversed the trial court, holding that the marijuana should have been suppressed.
- The State of Florida appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida, which affirmed the appellate court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the State of Florida's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 the Fourth Amendment permit a police officer to open a closed container found during an inventory search of an impounded vehicle when the police department has no standardized policy governing the opening of such containers?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The Fourth Amendment requires that an inventory search be sufficiently regulated to prevent it from becoming a ruse for a general rummaging to discover incriminating evidence. Because the Florida Highway Patrol had no policy whatsoever regarding the opening of closed containers, the officer's discretion was not guided by any standardized criteria and was therefore unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that an inventory search must be governed by an established routine designed to produce an inventory. While a policy giving officers discretion is not prohibited, that discretion must be exercised according to standard criteria and based on something other than suspicion of criminal activity. A policy does not have to be a rigid 'all or nothing' rule; for example, a policy allowing officers to open containers whose contents cannot be ascertained from the exterior would be permissible. In the absence of any such policy, however, the search was not sufficiently regulated to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No. The judgment should be affirmed because the Florida Highway Patrol had no policy at all regarding closed containers, rendering the search unconstitutional under existing precedent. Justice Brennan writes separately to disagree with the majority's dictum suggesting that a policy could vest individual officers with discretion to decide whether to open containers. He argues that prior cases, particularly Colorado v. Bertine, established that police may only open closed containers if a standard policy mandates the opening of all such containers in every impounded vehicle, thereby eliminating individual discretion. He also highlights facts suggesting this particular search was a pretextual hunt for drugs rather than a legitimate inventory.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No. The search was unconstitutional because the officer was given complete and unregulated discretion, which is clearly forbidden by precedent. Justice Blackmun writes separately to criticize the majority for opining on the constitutionality of policies that could grant officers discretion, as that issue was not before the Court. While he agrees that an 'all or nothing' policy is not required, he argues that giving discretion to an individual officer, rather than establishing it within the policy itself (e.g., 'open all unlocked containers'), creates the potential for the very Fourth Amendment abuses that the inventory search doctrine is designed to prevent. The majority's unnecessary statements risk being misinterpreted by lower courts and policymakers.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court was obviously correct, and the case did not merit a grant of certiorari. Justice Stevens criticizes the majority's 'unabashed judicial activism' in taking the case merely to correct a 'minor flaw' in the state court's reasoning. He argues that the Court then compounds the error by issuing its own flawed opinion that, while claiming to require 'standard criteria,' invites states to grant officers wide discretion to open virtually any container at their whim, thereby undermining the very standard it purports to uphold.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'standardized criteria' requirement for inventory searches established in cases like South Dakota v. Opperman and Colorado v. Bertine. The Court holds that while a standardized policy is constitutionally required to curb police discretion, it need not be a rigid, 'all-or-nothing' rule. It explicitly permits policies that allow for officer judgment, so long as that judgment is guided by standardized criteria related to the administrative purpose of the search. This creates a more flexible standard for law enforcement agencies but also opens the door for future litigation over what kind of discretionary policies are sufficiently 'standardized' to pass constitutional muster, a concern highlighted by the multiple concurrences.
Unlock the full brief for Florida v. Wells