Document: 495 U.S. 1 110 S.Ct. 1632 109 L.Ed.2d FLORIDA, Petitionerv.Martin Leslie WELLS. No. 88-1835. Argued Dec. 4, 1989. Decided April 18, 1990. Syllabus Following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, respondent Wells gave Florida Highway Patrol permission to open trunk impounded car. An inventory search car turned up two marijuana cigarette butts in an ashtray and a locked suitcase trunk. The was opened, considerable amount discovered. After state trial court denied Wells' motion suppress on ground that it seized violation Fourth Amendment, he pleaded nolo contendere charge possession controlled substance, but retained right appeal denial suppress. intermediate appellate held, inter alia, erred denying suppression found suitcase. State Supreme Court affirmed, noting absence any policy opening closed containers during searches, holding Colorado v. Bertine, 479 367, 107 738, 93 739, requires police mandate either all be opened such or no leaving room discretion part individual officers. Held: Absent with respect encountered search, instant insufficiently regulated satisfy Amendment. Requiring standardized criteria established routine as openings prevents officers from having so much latitude searches are into ruse general rummaging order discover incriminating evidence. However, denying, did Court, is at odds Bertine. While "all nothing" permissible, one allows officer sufficient determine whether particular container should light nature characteristics itself does not violate Pp. 3-5. 539 So.2d 464, (Fla.1989), affirmed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed concurring judgment, MARSHALL, joined, post, p. 5. BLACKMUN, 10, STEVENS, 12, , opinions judgment. Michael J. Neimand, Miami, Fla., petitioner. Huntley Johnson, Gainesville, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. A trooper stopped speeding. smelling alcohol breath, arrested influence. then agreed accompany station take breathalyzer test. informed would obtained At impoundment facility, Under trooper's direction, employees facility forced discovered garbage bag containing marijuana. 2 charged substance. His Amendment United States Constitution by court. He thereupon reserved On appeal, District Appeal Fifth Over dissent, 469 (1989). We granted certiorari, 491 903, 3183, 105 692 (1989), now affirm (although we disagree reasoning Florida). 3 relied 739 (1987); id., 376, S.Ct., 743 (BLACKMUN, concurring). Referring language Bertine concurrence footnote majority opinion, held 4 "[i]n specifically requiring legitimate prohibits us countenancing procedure followed this instance." So.2d, 469. 5 According court, record contained evidence searches. Ibid. added, however: 6 "[T]he must will opened. There can discretion." 7 latter statement derived support sentence taken isolation, think thrust both case. said Bertine: 8 "[N]othing [South Dakota v.] Opperman [, 428 364, 96 3092, 49 1000 (1976),] [Illinois Lafayette 462 640, 103 2605, 77 65 (1983),] exercise long exercised according standard basis something other than suspicion criminal activity." U.S., 375, 743. 9 Our view criteria, ibid., routine, Illinois Lafayette, 648, 2610, (1983), regulate based principle practice governing designed produce inventory. allowed "a purposeful means discovering crime," 10 But forbidding uncanalized conducting there reason insist they conducted totally mechanical fashion. "[I]nventory procedures serve protect owner's property while custody police, insure against claims lost, stolen, vandalized property, guard danger." Id., 372, 741; see also South Opperman, 369, 3097, (1976). may itself. Thus, policies unquestionably equally example, allow whose contents unable ascertain examining containers' exteriors. allowance judgment concerns related purposes 11 In present case, had whatever search. hold absent policy, sufficiently suitcase, therefore, properly suppressed Florida. Its therefore 12 Affirmed. 13 whom MARSHALL joins, 14 I agree affirmed because containers. As recognizes, ante, page, unconstitutional reading our cases. See 374, 742, (1987) (opening vehicle constitutional only mandated containers). cases have required "sufficiently regulated," avoid possibility abuse their power conduct 384, 3104, (1976) (Powell, concurring) ("[N]o significant placed hands officer: usually has choice subject its scope"). 15 facts case demonstrate prime danger searches: use excuse "inventory search" pretext broad vehicles contents. done accordance procedure. Although characterized point (much less containers) until reached time, after decision supra, entered amicus curiae argued Chapter 16 "Florida Forms Procedural Manual" guided concluded manual provide App. 256. appears been misapprehension effect time Tr. Oral Arg. 30-31. conceded oral argument before nonetheless performed "standard operating procedures" were later incorporated Manual. 17 ("The rules regulations . came shortly thereafter, merely codified what doing [sic ] period time"). offer hearing finding Trooper Adams procedures." testified asked immediate superior impound left Adams' discretion, stating nothing suspicious about "took upon [himself] go ahead towed." 88. thought proper ask anyone else's completed. 82-83. "Well, my chances." 83. addition, actually case: [t]he introduced neither sheet nor testimony inventoried items respondent's 5, 25-26. Rather, suggests used need "inventory" drugs. establishes arresting accompanying him house, returned lot 1:30 a.m. Grover Bryan, who assisted inventory, told "he wanted good, through real good felt drugs it." 141. desire stemmed fact large cash lying floor when arrested. Bryan insisted contraband "[t]here ain't nobody runs around kind money floorboard unless they're dealing like that." 142; ibid. ("[H]e drug deal"). When finally trunk, "want[ed] suitcase" "had strong probably suitcase." 145. men spent minutes prying lock knives. 82, 147. once inside, "[Adams] quite excited. 'there is.' " 24 ("Well, frank, got further along hungrier hungrier"). finds unnecessary recount these affirms narrow ground, clearly given total decide With agree. Like 11-12, however, cannot join goes suggest adopt vests some ("A itself"). This suggestion pure dictum disposition BLACKMUN notes, 11, lower courts reviewing constitutionality even local policymakers drafting follow performing inventories vehicles. write separately emphasize majority's inconsistent underlying relies mischaracterization 18 reasonable if limit police. 3104 within mandates n. 6, ("We that, Police Department's listing contents"). Contrary assertion today, 3, establish "[n]othing criteria," 743, made response Court's conclusion defendant's backpack premised city's inside impounded. 6. BLACKMUN's could clearer: "[I]t permissible following every vehicle." 377, 744 (emphasis added).1 19 Opening constitutes great intrusion privacy owner automobile. Arkansas Sanders, 442 753, 762-764, 99 2586, 2592-93, 61 235 (1979); Chadwick, 433 1, 13, 97 2476, 2484, 53 538 (1977). For reason, continue believe consent exigency, 387, 749 (MARSHALL, joined dissenting).2 event, recognized do circumscribed sharply abuse. If wishes revisit holding, wait another Attempting cast doubt vitality otherwise easy justified. 20 21 anything, complete choosing leave undisturbed Here, troopers enjoyed containers, question suppressed. because, instead ending point, continues language, concerning extent policeman, 22 disagrees department "mandate[s] opened." Ante, 3. concludes impose requirement. State, consistent locked, over certain size, though call words, choose scheme lies somewhere between extremes identified 23 It entirely different matter, say, does, policeman afforded officer, especially measured objective, creates potential rights earlier inventory-search against. states "police search," "to exteriors," added), more refuting all-or-nothing approach; opining very important addressed here raised circumstances statements issue perhaps regarded dicta, problematic inasmuch out context misinterpreted courts. Because, noted above, policemen renders undeniably unconstitutional, say anything precisely how much, any, constitutionally exercise. 25 additional criticism activism appropriate. One wonder why merited grant certiorari. obviously correct. minor flaw, countless do. Unless become self-appointed editors state-court law area, surely insufficient exercising certiorari jurisdiction. 26 course, might stricter Federal requires, extra layer protection provided citizens hamper enforcement State. Apparently mere burden interests enough generate corrective action 27 then, observes, content commenting flaw opinion. Instead, plunges flawed own. purportedly reaffirming requirement criteria" control (1987), invites open—or "closed exteriors." 4. luggage, briefcases, handbags, brown paper bags, violin cases—indeed, virtually except goldfish bowls—could whim unlocked. What criteria"? judicial function make necessary by-product process deciding actual controversies. reach blatantly unnecessarily new unabashed activism. Indeed, vested "in itself," flatly contradicts rejected "weigh strength individual's interest repository dangerous valuable items." 742. rule unworkable 'it unreasonable expect everyday course business fine subtle distinctions searched sealed unit.' quoting (1983); reaffirm principles here: [a] single familiar essential guide officers, limited expertise reflect balance social involved specific confront") (internal quotations omitted). potentially three governmental interests: valuables, false theft damage, danger. (1976); 378, 3101 government outweigh diminished expectation 378-379, 3101-02 justify retains privacy. 382-387, 746-749 (Marshall, dissenting). treatment luggage knives—served interests.

Category: 0