*1 FLORIDA WELLS 18, April Argued No. 88-1835. December 1989 Decided *2 Court, White, in which Rehnquist, J., opinion the of the delivered C. Brennan, J., filed an Kennedy, JJ., joined. O’Connor, Scalia, and MARSHALL,J., joined, post, judgment, in the in which opinion concurring 12, Stevens, J., p. opin- filed post, Blackmun, J., p. post, and p. 5. concurring judgment. in the ions Attorney of Flor- General Assistant Neimand,
Michael J. petitioner. argued him on the brief With the cause for ida, Attorney Enoch General, and Butterworth, Robert A. were Whitney. J. respоndent.
Huntley argued With cause for the Johnson Baldwin, Jr. N. was Fletcher him on the brief of the Rehnquist the opinion delivered Chief Court. stopped respondent trooper Highway Patrol
A Florida
smelling
speeding.
breath,
alcoholon Wells’
After
for
Wells
driving
trooper
influence.
under the
Wells for
arrested
accompany
trooper
agreed
to the station to
to
then
Wells
trooper
breathalyzer
informed Wells
The
test.
take a
pеrmission
impounded
Wells’
and obtained
the car would be
facility,
impoundment
open
an inven-
trunk. At the
to
marijuana cigarette
up
tory
car turned
two
of the
ashtray
trunk.
suitcase
and a locked
in an
butts
facility
employees
trooper’s
of the
direction,
Under
bag
garbage
con-
and discovered
the suitcase
forced
marijuana.
taining
amount of
considerable
possession
charged
a controlled sub-
was
with
Wells
ground
suppress marijuana on the
His motion
stance.
the Fourth Amendment to
violation of
seized
that it was
by the trial
denied
court.
States Constitution
the United
thereupon pleaded
charge
He
nolo contendere to the
but re-
right
appeal
sup-
served his
the denial of
motion
press.
appeal,
Appeal
On
the Florida District
Court
the Fifth
held,
alia,
District
inter
that the trial court erred in
denying suppression
marijuana
of the
in the
found
suitcasе.
Supreme
Over a
dissent,
Court of Florida affirmed. 539
(1989).
granted
So. 2d 464,
certiorari,
We
“[i]n policy specifically requiring the absence of a opening legitimate during of closed containers found in- ventory prohibits countenancing search, Bertine us from procedure followed in this 539 instance.” So. 2d, at 469.
According to the record court, the contained no evidence any Highway policy of Patrol on the of closed con- during inventory tainers found searches. Ibid. The court added, however: police
“The under Bertine must mandate either that all opened during inventory will be containers search, opened. or that no containers will be There can be no room for discretion.” Ibid.
While this latter statement of Court of Flor- support ida derived from a in sentence the Bertine concur- in it isolation, rence taken we think is at odds with the thrust opinion both of the concurrence and the of the Court in that case. We in Bertine: said
“Nothing
[South
Opperman[,
v.]
Dakota
Affirmed. Brennan, with whom Justice Marshall joins, concurring judgment. agree judgment with the Court that the Florida High- Court should be affirmed because the Florida
way policy respect opening no Patrol had at all with closed majority recognizes, containers. As the see ante, at page, this search was therefore unconstitutional under any reading of our cases. Cоlorado Bertine, v. (1987) (opening
U. S. 367, 374 closed container found in a inventory only vehicle search constitutional be- containers). policy cause mandated of such Our required inventory “sufficiently cases have regulated,” searches be page, possibility
ante, this so as avoid the power will their Opperman, abuse to conduct such a search. See (1976)(Pow- South Dakota 428 U. S. (“[N]o concurring) significant placed ell, discretion is usually the hands of the individual he officer: has no choice as subject scope”). search itsor prime danger The facts this case demonstrate a of insuf- ficiently regulated police may searches: use the ex- “inventory pretext cuse of an search” as for broad searches their In vehicles and contents. this case, there no ev- idence that the search was done in accordance with any invеntory procedure. Although standardized the State characterized the search as an the trial point any policy governing it court, did not standard inven- (much tory any policy governing searches of vehicles less to containers) closed until the case reached the Florida Court. time, At that which was after our *5 Highway supra, en- Patrol decision the Florida Chapter argued tered amicus curiae and the case as Highway Man- and Procedural the “Florida Patrol Forms policy guided the conduct of ual” the standard contained con- Court the search this case. The Florida provide any policy for the cluded that manual did not appears App. 256. But it now closed containers. under the that the Florida have been Court misapprehension time of was in effect at the that the manual Arg. the search in Tr. of Oral 30-31. this case. See argument this that thе State conceded at oral before Court case, in this manual not in at the time of the search was effect performed argued that the officer had but nonetheless according operating procedures” that to “standard incorporated Highway Manual. were later into the Patrol (“The regulations . . . came id., at 17 rules and which shortly merely codifiedwhat the Flor- thereafter, into effect doing procedures [sic] Highway ida Patrol was to all time”). any period But the did not offer evi- State suppression hearing support finding that at the dence performed inventory according Trooper to “stand- Adams Trooper operating procedures.” that he Adams testified ard superior impound his immediate whether he should asked inventory superior car that his left it to Adams’ dis- but stating nothing suspicious about the cretion, that he found upon [himself] Trooрer Adams testified that he “took it car. App. go have the car towed.” 88. also tes- ahead and He part thought that he the suitcase was tified anyone opinion proper but that he did not ask else’s completed. Id., until after the search was at 82-83. He my “Well, had to take chances.” at 83. testified In was no evidence that an addition, there actually in this case: the State introduced neither an done any testimony actually in- that the officer sheet nor respondent’s Tr. of items found car. Oral ventoried the testimony suppression Arg. Rather, the at the 5, 25-26. *6 hearing suggests that the officer used the need to “inven- tory” drugs. testimony as an to excuse search for The estab- arresting respondent driving lishes that after under the accompanying influence of him alcohol and to the station Trooper impound house, Adams returned to the lot to con- Bryan, duct the search at 1:30 a.m. Grover who trooper inventory, assisted the state with the at testified hearing Trooper that Adams told him that “he to in- wanted ventory good, go through good the car he wanted to it real drugs App. he because felt that there was in it.” 141. Ac- cording Bryan, to Adams’ desire to the car large stemmed from the fact that there was a amount cash lying respondent floor of car when was arrested. Bryan testified that Adams insisted that contraband would nobody “[t]here in be found the car because ain’t runs around money they’re with that kind of in the floorboard unless deal- ing drugs something or Id., like that.” at 142; see ibid. (“[H]e money felt that the had found was from a deal”). drug they finally When found the locked suitcase Bryan “want[ed] trunk, testified that Adams in the suit- strong suspicion drugs case” “had a because he there was probably and it car was in that Id., suitcase.” at 145. spent prying open The men then 10 minutes the lock оn the App. Bryan suitcase two knives. 147. testified they opened bag once suitcase and found a of mari- juana quite “[Adams] inside, excited. He ‘there said it Arg. (“Well, is.’” at 147. See also Tr. of Oral to be quite got along frank, the officer as he further and further hungrier got hungrier”). search, his and majority unnecessary it finds recount these facts be- cause it affirms the Florida Court on the narrow clearly ground, by Opperman established may police given not be total discretion to decide whether to open closed containers found search. agree. post, With this much Like at I Blackmun, join majority opinion 11-12, however, cannot because it inventory policy adopt may that a State on goes suggest with some officers police that vests individual (“A4 ante, containers. such whether decide to determine latitude sufficient officer allowed not be or should container should a particular whether and characteristics of the search of the nature light opened itself”). dictum pure suggestion This of the container *7 But as Justice the case. the given disposition Black- this will that dictum danger at there is a post, notes, 11, MUN constitutionality in the reviewing relied on lower courts by local searches, by policymak- or.even inventory of particular when to follow police performing drafting procedures ers I Thus, write separately vehicles. impounded inventories of is inconsistent suggestion majority’s that the emphasize search cases inventory the our reasoning underlying in Bertine. holding on mischaracterization relies reason- search is clearly inventory hold an Our cases if it is done in accord- only Fourth Amendment under the able that limit the discretion procedures ance with standard (Powell, 384 concur- S., J., 428 at Opperman, U. police. See Bertine, may open In held that the police the Court ring). if impounded only within an vehicle containers found closed of all such contain- opening mandates the inventory policy the (“We in that, n. this S., 374, emphasize U. at ers. See 479 Department’s pro- court found that the Police case, the trial and the of closed containers mandated opening cedures contents”). asser- Contrary majority’s of their listing ante, Bertine did at not 3, police establish today, tion of closed discretion with respect exercise The statement in search. during containers . . the exer- Opperman Bertine that “[njothing in . prohibits that discretion is exercised discretion so as police long cise S., 479 U. at was made criteria,” 375, standard according to was to an response argument had some discretion to because unconstitutional car. The Court’s conclu- impound whether to determine sion that defendant’s backpack constitu- tional was on clearly premised the city’s inventory policy left no discretion to individual police officers as the opening of containers found inside a car once it was impounded. See id., 6. concurrence in Ber- 374, n. Blackmun’s tine could not be clearer: is permissible “[I]t for police officers to open closed containers in an inventory search only if are standard following police procedures that mandate the ” opening of such containers every impounded vehicle. added).1 at 377 (emphasis a closed container
Opening constitutes a great intrusion into the privacy of its owner even when the container is found in an automobile. See Arkansas Sanders, U. S. United 762-764 States v. Chadwick, 433 U. (1979); 131,S. (1977). For this reason, continue to believe that the ab sence оf consent or exigency, police may not a closed container found search of an automobile. Bertine, S.,U. at 387 (Marshall, J., joined by In dissenting).2 event, any Brennan, *8 1 Indeed, majority’s suggestion police may the that be vested with dis open light cretion to “in container of the nature of the search and charac itself,” ante, 4, flatly teristics of the container at reasoning contradicts the case, in rejected Bertine. In thаt the argument police Court the are required “weigh strength privacy to the of the individual’s interest in the against possibility might container the that the container reposi serve as a tory dangerous Bertine, S., or valuable items.” 479 U. at 374. The “ Court found such a rule unworkable for ‘it would be unreasonable to ex pect police everyday in officers the course of business to make fine and sub deciding tle distinctions in may which container or items be searched and 375, which as a quoting must be sealed unit.’” at Illinois La v. (“We fayette, 640, (1983); S., 462 U. S. 648 see also 479 U. at 375 reaffirm principles these single guide police [a] here: familiar standard is essential to officers, only expertise who have limited time and to reflect on and balance the social specific and individual interests involved in the circumstances confront”) (internal omitted). quotations 2 recognized The Court has that an pоtentially can governmental protection valuables, serve three interests: of the owner’s protection police from damage, of the false claims of protection theft or
10 recognized such a a container constitutes
Court police great do so must to that the discretion intrusion against guard sharply If the to abuse. be circumscribed holding, for another it must wait revisit Court wishes vitality holding Attempting on cast doubt case. easy justified. in case is not this otherwise Bertine in thе Blackmun, concurring judgment. judgment agree that the I with Court establish affirmed. If our cases of Florida to be Court given police anything, cannot be it is that an individual officer complete choosing or to leave whether to search discretion containers and other items encountered undisturbed U. S. search. See Colorado v. (1987); Opperman, 428 U. n. 6 Dakota v. S. 367, 374, South (1976). complete given Florida Here, discretion open enjoyed troopers Highway or not Patrol sup- question properly containers, the evidence closed join majority pressed. opinion, however, not be- do point, ending case at that it continues cause, instead unnecessary language, case, facts concern- of this policeman, ing under the Fourth extent to which a conducting given an inven- Amendment, tory search. majority disagrees with the Florida Court’s policy police department have a which must
statement opened during “mandate[s] either that all containers will be Opperman, Dakota danger. South from 428 U. S. (1976); id., (Powell, J., concurring). The Court has concluded that government searches are constitutional because these in routine expectation privacy in a outweigh an individual’s diminished car. terests *9 (Powell, J., agree I do these concurring). not that inter at 378-379 justify opening of container which an individual retains ests the a closed supra, significant expectation privacy. a at 382-387 Indeed, (Marshall, I do not the treatment of dissenting). see how open the lock knives —served luggage prying the in this with two case — any governmental interests. of these opened.” bewill no containers or search, an Amend- Fourth majority the concludes 3. The Ante, nothing” requirement. impose “all or an such not ment does example, consistent agree. State, A Imuch this With adopt policy probably a could Amendment, the Fourth not that are opening all containers requires the which opening contain- of all requires the policy which a locked, or policies though do these size, even a certain under over or ers other In no containers. or of all call for the not that lies a scheme choose the discretion has words, a State by Florida the identified thе extremes between somewhere Supreme Court. say, as this however, to entirely matter, different an
It is may policeman be afforded majority an individual does, The exercise conducting search. especially it can- when by officer, individual of discretion criteria, creates objective, against standard measured not be rights ear- our against. Amendment Fourth potential for abuse the guard designed to inventory-search сases were lier may “police be officer majority that a states Thus, when particular a whether determine latitude sufficient allowed light na- opened of the be not or should should container “to permissible for State it is search,” and ture offi- contents whose containers of closed allow the examining from they to ascertain unable are cers determine added), (emphasis 4at ante, exteriors,” the containers’ refuting Florida doing majority more than very dif- opining about approach; all-or-nothing it is Court’s not question addressed important constitutional and ferent by circumstances raised not by here courts state issue majority’s Although statements case. they none- dicta, than regarded no more as perhaps to be are out of taken as problematic inasmuch are theless courts. trial by policymakers and misinterpreted or context complete discretion afforded above, as noted Because, issue search at renders case policemen in this Florida *10 undeniably I see no reason for the Court unconstitutional, ccny, say anything precisely much, how about if constitutionally may policeman exercise. an individual Stevens, concurring judgment.
Justice agree opinion, I think with Justice While Blackmun’s appropriate. activism is additional criticism of the Court’s why grant certio- wonder this case merited a One must judgment Supreme rari. The of the Florida Court was obvi- ously opinion flaw, Its a minor as count- correct. contained opinions self-appointed less do. are to Unless we become opinions area, editors of state-court in the criminal law exercising surely is an insufficient reason for our certiorari jurisdiction. might impose course, a stricter standard for- flaw,
the conduct of searches Florida than the Federal actually requires, suggestion Constitution but there is no layer protection provided that the extra to Florida citizens by hamper the Florida Court will law enforcement possibility Apparently in that the mere of a minor State. enough generate burden on law enforcement interests is by corrective action this Court. properly then, observes,
But as Blackmun commenting Court does not content itself with on the flaw opinion. plunges Instead, Florida Court’s it opinion purportedly ahead awith flawed of its own. While reaffirming requirement of “standard criteria” to control conducting inventory discretion in searches, see Colo (1987), rado v. S. U. Court invites open the State to allow their officers discretion to not to —or containers whose contents officers determine —“closed examining are unable to ascertain from the containers’ luggage, exteriors.” Ante, Thus, briefcases, at 4. hand bags, paper bags, virtually brown violin all indeed, cases— except goldfish opened containers bowls—could be at the officer, whim of the whether locked or unlocked. What left for the “standard criteria”? as a make judicial law function part proper
It is a deciding cases actual process of necessary by-product of the *11 blatantly and unnec- so out to reach But and controversies. kind is unabashed of this essarily a case law make new judicial activism.