## Facts

- Vermillion, South Dakota ordinances barred downtown parking between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.
- On December 10, 1973, a police officer found Donald Opperman’s unattended car illegally parked around 3 a.m. and issued a ticket warning that vehicles violating parking ordinances could be towed.
- Around 10 a.m., a second ticket was issued; officers inspected the vehicle and towed it to the city impound lot under routine procedures.
- At the impound lot, an officer observed a watch on the dashboard and other personal items inside the car.
- Following standard departmental policy, the officer unlocked the vehicle, entered it, and conducted an inventory of its contents.
- The officer opened the unlocked glove compartment during the inventory and found marijuana in a plastic bag.
- Opperman was arrested when he came to claim his property and was charged with possession of marijuana.
- The trial court denied Opperman’s motion to suppress the marijuana and convicted him.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding the inventory search unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as applied to the states.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits a warrantless, routine inventory search of an automobile lawfully impounded for parking violations when the search is conducted pursuant to standard police procedures.
2. Whether opening an unlocked glove compartment during such an inventory renders the inventory search unreasonable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that warrantless routine inventory searches of lawfully impounded vehicles conducted pursuant to standard police caretaking procedures are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
- The Court concluded that including the unlocked glove compartment within the inventory was reasonable as part of cataloging and securing property.
- The majority relied on the reduced expectation of privacy in automobiles and the non-investigatory caretaking purposes served by inventories (property protection, claims prevention, and safety).
- A concurrence emphasized that inventories must be standardized and not used as a pretext for evidence gathering.
- Dissents argued that opening closed areas without a warrant is a significant privacy intrusion and that administrative convenience does not justify dispensing with the warrant requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Reasonableness, not a warrant requirement, governs routine inventory searches of lawfully impounded automobiles conducted under standard police procedures.
- Inventory searches are justified by caretaking objectives: protecting the owner’s property, protecting police from false claims, and protecting police and the public from danger.
- The diminished expectation of privacy in automobiles supports allowing inventories that would be unreasonable in a home or office.
- Validity depends on lawful custody of the vehicle and standardized, non-investigatory procedures limiting officer discretion; pretextual “rummaging” for evidence is impermissible.
- An inventory may extend beyond items in plain view to include areas such as an unlocked glove compartment when consistent with standardized inventory practice.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld warrantless inventory searches of lawfully impounded vehicles as reasonable when conducted under standard, non-investigatory caretaking procedures, and it permitted officers to open an unlocked glove compartment as part of a routine inventory aimed at securing property and ensuring safety.


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