Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

The respondent, Donald Opperman, left his car unattended in a prohibited parking space in violation of local ordinances in Vermillion, South Dakota. He received two parking tickets from local police officers, and as a result, his vehicle was subsequently inspected and impounded. At the impound lot, a police officer observed personal items in the dashboard of the car and unlocked the door to inventory the items using standard procedures. In the unlocked glove compartment, the officer found marijuana in a plastic bag. Opperman was arrested later that day and charged with possession of marijuana. He was convicted but the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed on appeal and concluded the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Questions

  1. Does the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause prohibit police from inventorying a vehicle that is lawfully impounded for traffic violations, without first obtaining a warrant?

Conclusions

  1. No. Mr. Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger delivered opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that police can inventory a vehicle that has been lawfully impounded, even without a warrant. Inventory procedures for impounded vehicles are taken in order to protect the owner’s property and to protect police from claims of stolen items as well as potential danger. Therefore, the search of an impounded vehicle is considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

    Justice Louis F. Powell, Jr. wrote a concurring opinion agreeing that the Constitution allows inventory searches, as long as the search is not done in order to find evidence that could lead to criminal charges.

    Justice Thurgood Marshall, with whom Justice William J. Brennan Jr. and Justice Potter Stewart join, wrote a dissent arguing that the search of an automobile without a warrant clearly violates the Fourth Amendment. A routine inventory is no excuse to violate the privacy of the automobile’s owner.