South Dakota v. Opperman
428 U.S. 364 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A routine inventory search of an automobile lawfully impounded by police, when conducted pursuant to standard police procedures, is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and does not require a warrant.
Facts:
- Municipal ordinances in Vermillion, South Dakota, prohibited parking in certain downtown areas during the early morning hours.
- Around 3 a.m. on December 10, 1973, a police officer observed Donald Opperman's unoccupied vehicle illegally parked in a restricted zone and issued a ticket.
- At 10 a.m. the same morning, another officer issued a second ticket for the same violation.
- Following standard procedure for vehicles with multiple violations, the police towed Opperman's car to the city impound lot.
- At the impound lot, an officer observed a watch on the dashboard and other personal property on the back seat and floor.
- Following standard police procedures, the officer unlocked the car and used a standard inventory form to catalogue the car's contents for safekeeping.
- During the inventory, the officer opened the unlocked glove compartment and discovered a plastic bag containing marihuana.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Opperman was charged with possession of marihuana in a South Dakota state trial court.
- Opperman's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the inventory search was denied by the trial court.
- After a trial, a jury convicted Opperman of the charge.
- Opperman, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
- The Supreme Court of South Dakota, the state's highest court, reversed the conviction, holding that the inventory search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The State of South Dakota, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 routine inventory search of a lawfully impounded automobile, conducted pursuant to standard police procedure, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
No. A routine inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle, conducted pursuant to standard police procedure, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in automobiles compared to homes or offices due to their mobility and the pervasive government regulation they are subject to. These inventory searches serve three important non-investigatory, 'community caretaking' functions: 1) the protection of the owner's property while in police custody; 2) the protection of the police against claims of lost or stolen property; and 3) the protection of the police from potential danger. Because these searches are administrative rather than investigatory, the traditional requirements of a warrant and probable cause are inapplicable; the ultimate test is simply whether the search was reasonable under the circumstances, which it was in this case.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Powell
No. The search is valid under the Fourth Amendment. This inquiry involves two questions: whether routine inventory searches are permissible, and whether they require a warrant. First, they are permissible because the governmental interests in protecting property, deterring false claims, and ensuring safety outweigh the individual's diminished privacy interest in an automobile, provided the search is limited in scope and follows regulations. Second, a warrant is not required because the justifications for the warrant requirement—such as having a neutral magistrate evaluate probable cause or preventing hindsight justification—are not implicated in a non-criminal, standardized, and non-discretionary inventory procedure.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. A routine police inventory search of a closed glove compartment of a locked, impounded automobile violates the Fourth Amendment. The dissent argues that the majority's justifications—safety, protection against claims, and protection of the owner's property—are not supported by the record and are insufficient to overcome an individual's constitutionally protected privacy interests in the closed compartments of their car. An automobile is not a 'talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away.' The police made no effort to secure the owner's consent or allow him to make alternative arrangements for his property, which undermines the claim that the search was for his benefit. Absent specific cause to believe a search is necessary, such an intrusion is an unreasonable and arbitrary invasion of privacy.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'inventory search' as a distinct exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for automobiles. It solidifies the principle that 'reasonableness' is the ultimate constitutional standard and that not all government intrusions constitute searches in the traditional criminal investigation sense. The decision gives law enforcement significant authority to conduct warrantless, suspicionless searches of lawfully impounded vehicles, provided the search is part of a standardized, routine policy and not a pretext for a criminal investigation. This has a major impact on defendants charged with crimes based on evidence discovered during such administrative procedures.
Unlock the full brief for South Dakota v. Opperman