479 U.S. 367, 107 S. Ct. 738, 93 L. Ed. 2d 739 (1987)
On February 10, 1984, a police officer in Boulder, Colorado arrested Steven Lee Bertine for driving while under the influence of alcohol.1 After Bertine was taken into custody and before the arrival of a tow truck to take Bertine’s van to an impoundment lot, a backup officer inventoried the contents of the van.2 The officer found the backpack directly behind the front seat, opened it, and discovered a nylon bag containing metal canisters with cocaine, methaqualone tablets, cocaine paraphernalia, and seven hundred dollars in cash, plus two hundred ten dollars in a sealed envelope in an outside zippered pouch.3
Bertine was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to dispense sell and distribute, and unlawful possession of methaqualone.4 He moved to suppress the evidence found during the inventory search.5 The trial court found that probable cause supported the arrest, that the officers made the decisions to impound and inventory in good faith, and that the standard procedures mandated a detailed inventory involving the opening of containers, but granted the motion to suppress under the Colorado Constitution.6
On the State’s interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the suppression order under the United States Constitution.7 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the federal constitutional question decided by the Colorado Supreme Court.8
Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the State from proving charges with evidence discovered during an inventory search of a closed backpack and containers inside an impounded van?9
Inventory searches of impounded vehicles and closed containers found within them are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when conducted in good faith pursuant to standardized police procedures that mandate opening such containers, because they advance the governmental interests of protecting the owner's property, guarding against claims of loss or theft, and protecting police from danger, without requiring probable cause or a warrant.10
No. The established facts show that the backup officer conducted the inventory of Bertine's van according to local police procedures requiring a detailed inspection and inventory of impounded vehicles, including the opening of containers.11 The trial court found that the officers made the decisions to impound and inventory in good faith and that the standard procedures mandated opening containers and listing their contents.12 There was no showing that the police acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation.13 These facts establish that the inventory search of the closed backpack and its contents satisfied the Fourth Amendment requirements articulated in the governing precedents.14
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the State from proving the charges with evidence discovered during the inventory search of the closed backpack and containers.15
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Blackmun concurred, writing separately to underscore the importance of having such inventories conducted only pursuant to standardized police procedures.16 The underlying rationale for allowing an inventory exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant rule is that police officers are not vested with discretion to determine the scope of the inventory search.17 This absence of discretion ensures that inventory searches will not be used as a purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of crime.18
Thus, it is permissible for police officers to open closed containers in an inventory search only if they are following standard police procedures that mandate the opening of such containers in every impounded vehicle.19 As the Court emphasizes, the trial court in this case found that the Police Department's standard procedures did mandate the opening of closed containers and the listing of their contents.20
Justice Marshall dissented on the ground that this search was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.21 Unlike the inventories in Opperman and Lafayette, it was not conducted according to standardized procedures.22 The Boulder procedures afforded officers unbridled discretion to choose between impounding the vehicle and the park-and-lock alternative.23
The officer who conducted the inventory testified that the decision not to park and lock respondent's vehicle was his own individual discretionary decision.24 The governmental interests justifying the intrusion are significantly weaker than the interests identified in either Opperman or Lafayette and the expectation of privacy is considerably stronger.25