South Dakota v. Opperman:   
United States Supreme Court, 1976. 

Statement of the Case:

      Impounded car owner appeals his conviction for having marijuana when the marijuana was seized from his car upon an unauthorized routine inventory search of his car by a police officer when it was taken to the impound yard.

Procedure:

      Trial court convicted the defendant for possession of marijuana but the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the conviction ruling that the search of the car violated defendant's 4th Amendment rights.

Facts:

      Defendant had parked his car illegally and the car was impounded. Upon impounding, the police officer noticed some valuables in the car in plain view, so he did the regular inventory search of the car and found marijuana in the unlocked glove compartment. When the defendant came to police station to claim his car, he was give back his valuables less the weed and was arrested.

Issue:

      Whether a routine inventory search of a car, by a police officer, violates the 4^th Amendment when the car is being impounded.

Procedural Result:

      Judgment reversed and remanded for the State.

Holding:

      Assuming that it even is a search, a routine inventory search of a car, by a police officer, DOES NOT violate the 4^th Amendment when the car is being impounded.

Reasoning:

• Cars enjoy less protection under the 4th Amendment compared to homes because cars are mobile and people don't have a lot of expectation of privacy in cars.
• The court ruled that the search in the current case was reasonable because the officers were just conducting regular inventory search.
• Such inventory searches of the impounded cars are used in majority of the states to:
  • protect the owner's property,
  • protect police from stolen property disputes, and to
  • seek out any potential dangers to the officers or impounders.
• The court ruled that the search of the car was reasonable and the decision of the lower court was reversed.
• Concurring:  Society has an important interest in minimizing false claims against police, which lowers society’s trust in the officers.
• Dissent:  The officers should have to diligently search for the owner of the car before opening it up without a warrant.
  • Also known as:  Blah blah blah.

Additional Points:

• Majority states that an “inventory” might not be a search at all.
  • Assumes that inventories are searches and then declares that they can be reasonable, even without probable cause or a search warrant (see intent for searching).