|
|
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)
South Dakota v. Opperman No. 75-76 Argued March 29, 1976 Decided July 6, 1976 428 U.S. 364
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Syllabus
After respondent’s car had been impounded for multiple parking violations the police, following standard procedures, inventoried the contents of the car. In doing so, they discovered marihuana in the glove compartment, for the possession of which respondent was subsequently arrested. His motion to suppress the evidence yielded by the warrantless inventory search was denied, and respondent was thereafter convicted. The State Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the evidence had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth.
Held: The police procedures followed in this case did not involve an "unreasonable" search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The expectation of privacy in one’s automobile is significantly less than that relating to one’s home or office, Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590. When vehicles are impounded, police routinely follow caretaking procedures by securing and inventorying the cars’ contents. These procedures have been widely sustained as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This standard practice was followed here, and there is no suggestion of any investigatory motive on the part of the police. Pp. 367-376.
89 S.D. ___ , 228 N.W.2d 152, reversed and remanded.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BLACKMUN, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 376. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting statement, post, p. 396. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and STEWART, JJ., joined, post, p. 384.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) in 428 U.S. 364 428 U.S. 365. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=847EH26K43Y4W5S.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), in 428 U.S. 364, page 428 U.S. 365. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=847EH26K43Y4W5S.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976). cited in 1976, 428 U.S. 364, pp.428 U.S. 365. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=847EH26K43Y4W5S.
|