South Dakota v. Opperman Case Brief

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092 (1976)

FACTS: Local ordinances prohibited parking in certain areas of downtown Vermillion, South Dakota, during the overnight hours. After Opperman’s car received two tickets for being parked in the prohibited area, it was towed to the city impound lot.

At the tow lot, an officer noticed a watch on the dashboard, and other items of personal property in view in the car. At the officer’s direction, the car was unlocked and inventoried, using a standard form designed for that purpose.

The passenger compartment of the car was inventoried, including the glove compartment, which was unlocked. Marijuana in a plastic bag was found in the glove compartment. All of the property was secured in the property room. Later that day, Opperman appeared to claim his property. Subsequently, he was arrested for possession of marijuana. He was convicted, but the state Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the marijuana had been obtained in violated of the Fourth Amendment.

ISSUE: Is property found during an inventory search admissible as evidence?

HOLDING: Yes

DISCUSSION: The Supreme Court decided that because of the lesser expectation of privacy in vehicles, no exigent circumstances are necessary to search a vehicle lawfully in police custody. An inventory routinely follows an impoundment for three reasons, outlined by the Court: protection of the owner’s property, protection of the police from claims or disputes about the property, and the protection of the public (and the public) from potential danger. The Court equated this to the “community caretaking” function held by the police in similar areas. As such, the search was “reasonable” under the circumstances.