Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1987

Colorado v. Bertine

479 U.S. 367 | 107 S. Ct. 738 | 93 L. Ed. 2d 739 | 1987 U.S. LEXIS 286 | 55 U.S.L.W. 4105

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case permits police to open closed containers during a vehicle inventory when the impoundment and inventory follow standardized, good-faith caretaking procedures rather than serving as a pretext to search for evidence.

Background

After arresting Steven Bertine for driving under the influence, Boulder police took him into custody and decided to impound his van. Before the tow truck arrived, a backup officer conducted an inventory under department procedures requiring a detailed inspection of impounded vehicles. The officer opened a backpack behind the front seat, then opened containers inside it, finding cocaine, methaqualone, drug paraphernalia, and cash.

Bertine moved to suppress the evidence. The trial court found the arrest, impoundment decision, and inventory were made in good faith and that department procedures called for opening containers and listing their contents. Although it described the inventory as somewhat slipshod, the court found no violation of the federal Fourth Amendment, but suppressed the evidence under the Colorado Constitution. On the State's interlocutory appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on federal constitutional grounds, reasoning that prior decisions protecting closed luggage and containers controlled. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Fourth Amendment permits police conducting a valid inventory of an impounded vehicle to open a closed backpack and containers within it.

Holding

Yes. Police may open closed containers during an inventory search when they act under standardized, good-faith procedures that authorize such an inspection.

Reasoning

Inventory searches are a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's usual warrant requirement. They are justified not by probable cause or a criminal-investigative purpose, but by routine community-caretaking functions: protecting property in police custody, guarding police against later claims of loss or theft, and identifying dangerous items.

The Colorado Supreme Court wrongly relied on United States v. Chadwick and Arkansas v. Sanders, because those cases involved searches undertaken solely to investigate crime. An inventory search is assessed for reasonableness under its distinct caretaking rationale, so it need not rest on a warrant or probable cause.

The interests supporting the inventories upheld in South Dakota v. Opperman and Illinois v. Lafayette were present here. Once police assumed custody of Bertine's van and its contents, a detailed inventory helped safeguard his property, document the property for claims purposes, and reveal possible hazards to police or others.

The trial court found that Boulder procedures required officers to make a detailed inventory, including opening containers and listing their contents. There was no showing that the officers acted in bad faith or used the inventory as a pretext for a criminal investigation. That standardized, good-faith character made the search reasonable.

The Court rejected a container-by-container balancing rule. Requiring officers in the field to decide whether each item presents enough risk or value to justify opening it would create impractical and uncertain distinctions. A single, familiar standard governing the scope of an authorized inventory better serves both effective policing and Fourth Amendment limits.

Issue #2

Whether the inventory was unreasonable because the van would be stored in a secure lot and police could have allowed Bertine to make other arrangements for the van and its contents.

Holding

No. The Fourth Amendment does not require police to choose the least intrusive reasonable alternative to a standardized inventory procedure.

Reasoning

A secure impoundment facility reduces some risks but does not eliminate the governmental interests in documenting property and identifying dangerous items. Police may reasonably inventory property even when a storage facility is lighted, fenced, or otherwise protected.

Police could have offered Bertine the opportunity to arrange for his van, but the constitutional question is whether the procedure actually used was reasonable, not whether courts can identify a less intrusive option in hindsight. Reasonable inventory regulations administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment even if another reasonable procedure was available.

Issue #3

Whether departmental discretion to impound Bertine's van rather than park and lock it rendered the inventory search unconstitutional.

Holding

No. Police may exercise discretion over impoundment when it is guided by standardized criteria and is not based on suspicion that the vehicle contains evidence of crime.

Reasoning

Opperman and Lafayette do not prohibit all police discretion. They prohibit discretion untethered from ordinary caretaking standards or used as a means to pursue evidence of criminal activity.

Boulder's procedures directed officers to consider standardized factors bearing on the feasibility and appropriateness of parking and locking a vehicle instead of impounding it, including risks of damage or vandalism and whether the arrestee's approval could be obtained. Those criteria limited the officers' choice.

Nothing in the record showed that officers impounded Bertine's van to investigate suspected criminal activity. Because the decision was made under caretaking criteria rather than investigative suspicion, the discretion to impound did not invalidate the resulting inventory.

Concurrences

Justice Blackmun

Reasoning

Justice Blackmun joined the Court's opinion but emphasized that standardized procedures are indispensable to the inventory-search exception. The exception is justified because officers ordinarily lack discretion to decide the search's scope, reducing the risk that an inventory will become a general search for evidence.

In his view, police may open closed containers only where standard procedures require the opening of such containers in every impounded vehicle. He found that condition satisfied because the trial court determined that Boulder procedures mandated opening closed containers and recording their contents.

Dissents

Justice Marshall

Reasoning

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, argued that the search was not a legitimate inventory because Boulder gave officers uncontrolled discretion both to impound a vehicle rather than park and lock it and to decide what items to inspect. Standardized procedures are essential to ensure that a caretaking inventory does not become an after-the-fact justification for an investigative search.

The record, in his view, contradicted the majority's claim that standardized impoundment criteria governed the decision. The inventorying officer described the decision as his individual discretionary choice, and the department's alternatives gave officers broad freedom to select the one option—impoundment—that permitted a search of closed containers.

Justice Marshall also maintained that the asserted governmental interests were weak. The van was headed to a secure storage lot; the inventory itself was incomplete and disorganized, undermining the claim that it would protect police against property claims; and nothing about Bertine's DUI arrest suggested a meaningful danger from weapons or explosives.

By contrast, Bertine's privacy interest was substantial because the search reached a backpack and closed containers, traditional repositories of personal effects. Bertine was present and could have arranged for the van's safekeeping, and his traffic-related detention was likely to be brief. Unlike the station-house inventory in Lafayette, this search lacked the pressing jail-security concern that could justify examining an arrestee's personal bag.

Justice Marshall concluded that the majority treated the word inventory as a talisman that displaced ordinary Fourth Amendment protections. In his view, the absence of genuinely standardized limits, combined with the weak caretaking justification and strong privacy interest in luggage, required suppression.