Court Opinion

ID: 9430775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:30:32.920908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:25.341956
License: Public Domain

Justice Marshall,
with whom Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.
Recognizing that “both Opperman and Lafayette are distinguishable from the present case on their facts,” ante, at 376, the majority applies the balancing test enunciated in those cases to uphold as reasonable the inventory of a closed container in a car impounded when its driver was placed under arrest. However, the distinctive facts of this case require a different result. This search — it cannot legitimately be labeled an inventory — was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. Unlike the inventories in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976), and Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U. S. 640 (1983), it was not conducted according to standardized procedures. Furthermore, the governmental interests justifying the intrusion are significantly weaker than the interests identified in either Opperman or Lafayette and the expectation of privacy is considerably stronger.
I
As the Court acknowledges, ante, at 374, and n. 6, and 375-376, inventory searches are reasonable only if conducted according to standardized procedures. In both Opperman and Lafayette, the Court relied on the absence of police discretion in determining that the inventory searches in question were reasonable. Chief Justice Burger’s opinion in Opperman repeatedly referred to this standardized nature of inventory procedures. See 428 U. S., at 369, 372, 376. Justice Powell’s concurring opinion in that case also *378stressed that “no significant discretion is placed in the hands of the individual officer: he usually has no choice as to the subject of the search or its scope.” Id., at 384 (footnote omitted). Similarly, the Court in Lafayette emphasized the standardized procedure under which the station-house inventory was conducted. See 462 U. S., at 646, 647, 648; see also id., at 649 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment). In assessing the reasonableness of searches conducted in limited situations such as these, where we do not require probable cause or a warrant, we have consistently emphasized the need for such set procedures: “standardless and unconstrained discretion is the evil the Court has discerned when in previous cases it has insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed, at least to some extent.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 661 (1979). See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266, 270 (1973); Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, 443 (1973); Harris v. United States, 390 U. S. 234, 235 (1968); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 532-533 (1967).
The Court today attempts to evade these clear prohibitions on unfettered police discretion by declaring that “the discretion afforded the Boulder police was exercised in light of standardized criteria, related to the feasibility and appropriateness of parking and locking a vehicle rather than impounding it.” Ante, at 375-376. This vital assertion is flatly contradicted by the record in this case. The officer who conducted the inventory, Officer Reichenbach, testified at the suppression hearing that the decision not to “park and lock” respondent’s vehicle was his “own individual discretionary decision.” Tr. 76. Indeed, application of these supposedly standardized “criteria” upon which the Court so heavily relies would have yielded a different result in this case. Since there was ample public parking adjacent to the intersection where respondent was stopped, consideration of “feasibility” would certainly have militated in favor of the “park and lock” *379option, not against it. I do not comprehend how consideration of “appropriateness” serves to channel a field officer’s discretion; nonetheless, the “park and lock” option would seem particularly appropriate in this case, where respondent was stopped for a traffic offense and was not likely to be in custody for a significant length of time.
Indeed, the record indicates that no standardized criteria limit a Boulder police officer’s discretion. According to a departmental directive,1 after placing a driver under arrest, an officer has three options for disposing of the vehicle. First, he can allow a third party to take custody.2 Second, the officer or the driver (depending on the nature of the arrest) may take the car to the nearest public parking facility, lock it, and take the keys.3 Finally, the officer can do what was done in *380this case: impound the vehicle, and search and inventory its contents, including closed containers.4
Under the first option, the police have no occasion to search the automobile. Under'the “park and lock” option, “[c]losed containers that give no indication of containing either valuables or a weapon may not be opened and the contents searched (i. e., inventoried).” App. 92-93 (emphasis added). Only if the police choose the third option are they entitled to search closed containers in the vehicle. Where the vehicle is not itself evidence of a crime,5 as in this case, the police apparently have totally unbridled discretion as to which procedure to use. See 706 P. 2d 411, 413, n. 3 (Colo. 1985) (“[T]he Boulder Police Department’s regulations and rules do not require that an automobile be inventoried and searched in accordance with the procedures followed in this *381case”). Consistent with this conclusion, Officer Reichenbach testified that such decisions were left to the discretion of the officer on the scene. App. 60.
Once a Boulder police officer has made this initial completely discretionary decision to impound a vehicle, he is given little guidance as to which areas to search and what sort of items to inventory. The arresting officer, Officer Toporek, testified at the suppression hearing as to what items would be inventoried: “That would I think be very individualistic as far as what an officer may or may not go into. I think whatever arouses his suspicious [sic] as far as what may be contained in any type of article in the car.” Id., at 78. In application, these so-called procedures left the breadth of the “inventory” to the whim of the individual officer. Clearly, “[t]he practical effect of this system is to leave the [owner] subject to the discretion of the official in the field.” Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S., at 532.
Inventory searches are not subject to the warrant requirement because they are conducted by the government as part of a “community caretaking” function, “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S., at 441. Standardized procedures are necessary to ensure that this narrow exception is not improperly used to justify, after the fact, a warrantless investigative foray. Accordingly, to invalidate a search that is conducted without established procedures, it is not necessary to establish that the police actually acted in bad faith, or that the inventory was in fact a “pretext.” By allowing the police unfettered discretion, Boulder’s discretionary scheme, like the random spot checks in Delaware v. Prouse, is unreasonable because of the “‘grave danger’ of abuse of discretion.” 440 U. S., at 662.
II
In South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976), and Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U. S. 640 (1983), both of which *382involved inventories conducted pursuant to standardized procedures, we balanced the individual’s expectation of privacy against the government’s interests to determine whether the search was reasonable. Even if the search in this case did constitute a legitimate inventory, it would nonetheless be unreasonable under this analysis.
A
The Court greatly overstates the justifications for the inventory exception to the Fourth Amendment. Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority in Opperman, relied on three governmental interests to justify the inventory search of an unlocked glove compartment in an automobile impounded for overtime parking: (i) “the protection of the owner’s property while it remains in police custody”; (ii) “the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property”; and (iii) “the protection of the police from potential danger.” 428 U. S., at 369. The majority finds that “nearly the same” interests obtain in this case. See ante, at 373. As Justice Powell’s concurring opinion in Opperman reveals, however, only the first of these interests is actually served by an automobile inventory search.
The protection-against-claims interest did not justify the inventory search either in Opperman, see 428 U. S., at 378, n. 3 (Powell, J., concurring), or in this case. As the majority apparently concedes, ante, at 373, the use of secure im-poundment facilities effectively eliminates this concern.6 As *383to false claims, “inventories are [not] a completely effective means of discouraging false claims, since there remains the possibility of accompanying such claims with an assertion that an item was stolen prior to the inventory or was intentionally omitted from the police records.” 428 U. S., at 378-379 (Powell, J., concurring). See also id., at 391, and nn. 9 and 10 (Marshall, J., dissenting); 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 5.5, p. 360, n. 50 (1978 and Supp. 1986).
Officer Reichenbach’s inventory in this case would not have protected the police against claims lodged by respondent, false or otherwise. Indeed, the trial court’s characterization of the inventory as “slip-shod” is the height of understatement. For example, Officer Reichenbach failed to list $150 in cash found in respondent’s wallet or the contents of a sealed envelope marked “rent,” $210, in the relevant section of the property form. Tr. 40-41; App. 41-42. His reports make no reference to other items of value, including respondent’s credit cards, and a converter, a hydraulic jack, and a set of tire chains, worth a total of $125. Tr. 41, 62-63. The $700 in cash found in respondent’s backpack, along with the contraband, appeared only on a property form completed later by someone other than Officer Reichenbach. Id., at 81-82. The interior of the vehicle was lef t in disarray, id., at 99, and the officer “inadvertently” retained respondent’s keys — including his house keys — for two days following his arrest. Id., at 116, 133-134.
The third interest — protecting the police from potential danger — failed to receive the endorsement of a majority of the Court in Opperman. After noting that “there is little danger associated with impounding unsearched vehicles,” Justice Powell recognized that “there does not appear to be any effective way of identifying in advance those circumstances or classes of automobile impoundments which represent a greater risk.” 428 U. S., at 378. See also id., at 390 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (safety rationale “cannot justify the search of every car upon the basis of undifferentiated pos*384sibility of harm”). As with the charge of overtime parking in Opperman, there is nothing in the nature of the offense for which respondent was arrested that suggests he was likely to be carrying weapons, explosives, or other dangerous items. Cf. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S., at 436-437 (police reasonably believed that the defendant’s service revolver was in the car). Not only is protecting the police from dangerous instrumentalities an attenuated justification for most automobile inventory searches, but opening closed containers to inventory the contents can only increase the risk. In the words of the District Court in United States v. Cooper, 428 F. Supp. 652, 654-655 (SD Ohio 1977): “The argument that the search was necessary to avoid a possible booby-trap is . . . easily refuted. No sane individual inspects for booby-traps by simply opening the container.”
Thus, only the government’s interest in protecting the owner’s property actually justifies an inventory search of an impounded vehicle. See 428 U. S., at 379 (Powell, J., concurring); id., at 391 (Marshall, J., dissenting). While I continue to believe that preservation of property does not outweigh the privacy and security interests protected by the Fourth Amendment, I fail to see how preservation can even be asserted as a justification for the search in this case. In Opperman, the owner of the impounded car was not available to safeguard his possessions, see id., at 375, and it could plausibly be argued that, in his absence, the police were entitled to act for his presumed benefit. See also Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, at 436 (comatose defendant). When the police conducted the inventory in Opperman, they could not predict how long the car would be left in their possession. See 428 U. S., at 379 (Powell, J., concurring) (“[M]any owners might leave valuables in their automobiles temporarily that they would not leave there unattended for the several days that police custody may last”); cf. Cooper v. California, 386 U. S. 58, 61 (1967) (police retained car for four months pending forfeiture; length of time considered by the Court in as*385sessing reasonableness of inventory). In this case, however, the owner was “present to make other arrangements for the safekeeping of his belongings,” Opperman, 428 U. S., at 375, yet the police made no attempt to ascertain whether in fact he wanted them to “safeguard” his property. Furthermore, since respondent was charged with a traffic offense, he was unlikely to remain in custody for more than a few hours. He might well have been willing to leave his valuables unattended in the locked van for such a short period of time. See Tr. 110 (had he been given the choice, respondent indicated at the suppression hearing that he “would have parked [the van] in the lot across the street [and] [h]ad somebody come and get it”).
Thus, the government’s interests in this case are weaker than in Opperman, but the search here is much more intrusive. Opperman did not involve a search of closed containers or other items that “ ‘touch upon intimate areas of an individual’s personal affairs,’” 428 U. S., at 380, and n. 7 (Powell, J., concurring) (quoting California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21, 78-79 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring)); nor can the Court’s opinion be read to authorize the inspection of “containers which might themselves be sealed, removed and secured without further intrusion.” 428 U. S., at 388, n. 6 (Marshall, J., dissenting). To expand the Opperman rationale to include containers in which the owner clearly has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Court relies on Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U. S. 640 (1983). Such reb-anee is fundamentally misplaced, however; the inventory in Lafayette was justified by considerations which are totally absent in this context.
In Lafayette, we upheld a station-house inventory search of an arrestee’s shoulder bag. Notwithstanding the Court’s assertions to the contrary, ante, at 373, the inventory in that case was justified primarily by compelling governmental interests unique to the station house, preincarceration context. There is a powerful interest in preventing the introduction *386of contraband or weapons into a jail.7 “Arrested persons have also been known to injure themselves — or others — with belts, knives, drugs, or other items on their person while being detained. Dangerous instrumentalities — such as razor blades, bombs, or weapons — can be concealed in innocent-looking articles taken from the arrestee’s possession.” 462 U. S., at 646. Removing such items from persons about to be incarcerated is necessary to reasonable jail security; once these items have been identified and removed, “inventorying them is an entirely reasonable administrative procedure.” Ibid. Although Lafayette also involved the property justifications relied on in Opperman, I do not believe it can fairly be read to expand the scope of inventory searches where the pressing security concerns of the station house are absent.
B
Not only are the government’s interests weaker here than in Opperman and Lafayette, but respondent’s privacy interest is greater. In upholding the search in Opperman, the Court emphasized the fact that the defendant had a diminished expectation of privacy in his automobile, due to “pervasive and continuing governmental regulation and controls, including periodic inspection and licensing requirements” and “the obviously public nature of automobile travel.” 428 U. S., at 368. See also id., at 379 (Powell, J., concurring); but see id., at 386-388 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Similarly, in Lafayette, the Court emphasized the *387fact that the defendant was in custody at the time the inventory took place. 462 U. S., at 645-646.
Here the Court completely ignores respondent’s expectation of privacy in his backpack. Whatever his expectation of privacy in his automobile generally, our prior decisions clearly establish that he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpack and its contents. See Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U. S. 753, 762 (1979) (“[L]uggage is a common repository for one’s personal effects, and therefore is inevitably associated with the expectation of privacy”); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 13 (1977) (“[A] person’s expectations of privacy in personal luggage are substantially greater than in an automobile”). Indeed, the Boulder police officer who conducted the inventory acknowledged that backpacks commonly serve as repositories for personal effects.8 Thus, even if the governmental interests in this case were the same as those in Opperman, they would nonetheless be outweighed by respondent’s comparatively greater expectation of privacy in his luggage.
f — i HH I — I
In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 461-462 (1971), a plurality of this Court stated: “The word ‘automobile’ is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears.” By upholding the search in this case, the Court not only ignores that principle, but creates another talisman to overcome the requirements of the Fourth Amendment — the term “inventory.” Accordingly, I dissent.

 Subsections 7-7-2(a)(l) and 7-7-2(a)(4) of the Boulder Revised Code authorize police to impound a vehicle if the driver is taken into custody or if the vehicle obstructs traffic. A departmental directive authorizes inventory searches of impounded vehicles. See General Procedure issued from the office of the Chief of Police, Boulder Police Department, concerning Motor Vehicle Impounds, effective September 7,1977, reproduced in App. 89-95.

 See id., at 95.

 If the vehicle and its contents are not evidence of a crime and the owner consents, § III of the General Procedure provides, in relevant part: “A. Upon placing the operator of a motor vehicle in custody, Officers may take the following steps in securing the arrestee’s vehicle and property . . . :
[[Image here]]
“4. The Officer shall drive the vehicle off the roadway and legally park the vehicle in the nearest PUBLIC parking area. The date, time, and location where the vehicle is parked shall be indicated on the IMPOUND FORM.
“5. The Officer shall remove the ignition keys, and lock all doors of the vehicle.
“6. During the booking process, the arrestee shall be given a continuation form for his signature which indicates the location of his vehicle. One copy of the continuation form is to be retained in the case file.” Id., at 93-94
(emphasis added).

 Section 11(A) of the General Procedure establishes the following im-poundment procedures:
“1. If the vehicle or its contents have been used in the commission of a crime or are themselves the fruit of a crime, the Officer shall conduct a detailed vehicle inspection and inventory and record it upon the VEHICLE IMPOUND FORM.
“2. Personal items of value should be removed from the vehicle and subsequently placed into Property for safekeeping.
“3. The Officer, shall request a Tow Truck, and upon its arrival have the Tow Truck operator sign the IMPOUND FORM, keeping one copy in his possession, before the Officer releases the vehicle for impoundment in the City of Boulder impoundment facility.” Id., at 90-91.
Subsection (B) of the directive provides that this procedure is also to be followed when a vehicle involved in a traffic accident is to be held for evi-dentiary purposes.

 Respondent’s van was not evidence of a crime within the meaning of the departmental directive; Officer Reichenbaeh testified that it was not his practice to impound all ears following an arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Tr. 61. The Memorandum also requires the “approval of the arrestee” before the police can “park and lock” his car, App. 92. In this case, however, respondent was never advised of this option and had no opportunity to consent. At the suppression hearing, he indicated that he would have consented to such a procedure. See Tr. 110.

 The impoundment lot in South Dakota v. Opperman was “the old county highway yard. It ha[d] a wooden fence partially around part of it, and kind of a dilapidated wire fence, a makeshift fence.” 428 U. S., at 366, n. 1. See also Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, 443 (1973) (“[T]he car was left outside, in a lot seven miles from the police station to which respondent had been taken, and no guard was posted over it”). By contrast, in the present case, respondent’s vehicle was taken to a lighted, private storage lot with a locked 6-foot fence. The lot was patrolled by private security officers and police, and nothing had ever been stolen from a vehicle in the lot. App. 69-71.

 The importance of this justification to the outcome in Illinois v. Lafayette is amply demonstrated by the Court’s direction on remand: “The record is unclear as to whether respondent was to have been incarcerated after being booked for disturbing the peace. That is an appropriate inquiry on remand.” 462 U. S., at 648, n. 3. See also id., at 649 (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment) (“I agree that the police do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct an inventory search prior to incarcerating a suspect” (emphasis added)); see also United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 258, n. 7 (1973) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (the justification for station-house searches is “the fact that the suspect will be placed in jail”).

 At the suppression hearing, Officer Reiehenbaeh stated: “The average person on the street. . . carries items of personal value in the backpacks, wallets, checkbooks, text books.” Tr. 23.