South Dakota v. Opperman

1976-07-06

Headline: Court permits routine police inventory searches of impounded cars, upholding inspection of unlocked glove compartments and allowing officers to seize found items as evidence against vehicle owners.

Holding: The Court reversed the state court and held that a routine inventory search of a lawfully impounded automobile, conducted under standard police procedures and including an unlocked glove compartment, was reasonable and its evidence admissible.

Real World Impact:

Allows police to inventory impounded cars and use found items as criminal evidence.
Makes glove-compartment contents in unlocked cars subject to inventory searches.
Encourages police departments to keep and follow standard inventory procedures.

Topics: police searches, impounded vehicles, privacy rights, evidence from cars

Summary

Background

City police in Vermillion, South Dakota, towed a car after two overtime parking tickets and followed their usual practice of making a written inventory. From outside the vehicle an officer saw a watch and other personal items. Using the department's standard inventory form, the officer unlocked the door and checked the interior, including the unlocked glove compartment, where he found marijuana. The driver later came to claim his property, was arrested, convicted, and then had his conviction reversed by the state supreme court before the United States Supreme Court took the case.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a routine inventory search of a lawfully impounded car is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The majority said it is not. The Court emphasized that cars differ from homes because of mobility and a reduced expectation of privacy, and that police perform caretaking duties like towing, traffic control, and protecting property. The Court relied on prior decisions (Cooper, Harris, and Cady) and on widespread, standardized inventory practices aimed at protecting owners, police, and the public. Because the Vermillion officers followed standard procedures, acted without an investigatory pretext, and were prompted in part by items in plain view, the search of the unlocked glove compartment was held reasonable and the evidence admissible.

Real world impact

The decision allows police to continue routine inventories of lawfully impounded vehicles when carried out under standard, nonpretextual procedures. Vehicle owners should expect inventories of visible items and customary compartments when cars are towed, and evidence found in such inventories may be used in prosecutions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Powell concurred, stressing the balancing of interests and that warrants are not required for routine inventories. Justice Marshall (joined by Brennan and Stewart) dissented, arguing routine searches of closed compartments invade privacy, that owners' consent or specific justification should be required, and that this ruling unduly presumes consent.