Colorado v. Bertine:   
United States Supreme Court, 1987. 

Statement of the Case: 

Procedure:

      Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed a lower court’s ruling granting ?’s motion to suppress this evidence.

Facts:

      D was arrested for DUI, his van was towed to an impound lot, and an officer took inventory of the items in the van.  The officer opened a closed backpack and found controlled substances, cocaine paraphernalia, and a large amount of cash.  He was charged with intent to dispense, sell, deliver, and unlawful possession of methaqualone.

      The impound law stated that the officer could either give the car to a 3^rd party for safekeeping, leave it locked in a parking lot, or have it impounded and inventory it.

Issue:

      Whether an inventory search of a car upon its impounding violates the 4^th Amendment, when the officer could have just left the car there, and impounded it at his discretion.

Procedural Result:

      Judgment reversed for the State.

Holding:

      An inventory search of a car upon its impounding does not violate the 4^th Amendment, when the officer could have just left the car there, and impounded it at his discretion.

Reasoning:

• By securing the property, the police protect it from unauthorized interference. 
• Knowledge of the precise nature of the property helps guard against claims of theft, vandalism, or negligence.  Such knowledge also helped to avert any danger to police or others that may have been posed by the property.
• Rule:  Reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment, even though courts might as a matter of hindsight be able to devise equally reasonable rules requiring a different procedure.

Concurring: 

   It is permissible for police officers to open closed containers in an inventory search only if they are following standard police procedures that that mandate the opening of such containers in every impounded vehicle.

Dissent:

      Where the vehicle itself is not evidence of a crime, as in this case, the police apparently have unbridled discretion as to which procedure to use. The court overstates the justification exception to the 4^th amendment.

Additional Points: 

• Court held that containers in vehicles are subject to warrantless inventory searches to the same extent as the vehicles themselves.

Florida v. Wells (U.S. 1990):  Court concluded that an inventory search of a locked suitcase found in the trunk of an impounded vehicle violated the 4^th Amendment BECAUSE the FHP had no policy regarding closed containers during an inventory search. 

• BUT ALSO, held that there was no need to either search every container in the car, or none of them.  It was not all or nothing, but left to the officers’ discretion.