495 U.S. 1 (1990), 88-1835, Florida v. Wells

Docket Nº:No. 88-1835
Citation:495 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1, 58 U.S.L.W. 4454
Party Name:Florida v. Wells
Case Date:April 18, 1990
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1

495 U.S. 1 (1990)

110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1, 58 U.S.L.W. 4454

Florida

v.

Wells

No. 88-1835

United States Supreme Court

April 18, 1990

Argued Dec. 4, 1989

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

Syllabus

Following his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol, respondent Wells gave the Florida Highway Patrol permission to open the trunk of his impounded car. An inventory search of the car turned up two marijuana cigarette butts in an ashtray and a locked suitcase in the trunk. The suitcase was opened, and a considerable amount of marijuana was discovered. After the state trial court denied Wells' motion to suppress the marijuana on the ground that it was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, he pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of possession of a controlled substance, but retained his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. The intermediate appellate court held, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying suppression of the marijuana found in the suitcase. The State Supreme Court affirmed, noting the absence of any Highway Patrol policy on the opening of closed containers found during inventory searches, and holding that Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, requires police to mandate either that all containers be opened during such searches or that no containers be opened, leaving no [110 S.Ct. 1634] room for discretion on the part of individual officers.

Held: Absent any Highway Patrol policy with respect to the opening of closed containers encountered during an inventory search, the instant search was insufficiently regulated to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Requiring standardized criteria or established routine as to such openings prevents individual police officers from having so much latitude that inventory searches are turned into a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. However, denying, as did

Page 2

the State Supreme Court, police officers all discretion is at odds with Bertine. While an "all or nothing" policy is permissible, one that allows a police officer sufficient latitude to determine whether a particular container should be opened in light of the nature of the search and characteristics of the container itself does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3-5.

539 So.2d 464, (Fla.1989), affirmed.

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 5. BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 10, and STEVENS, J., post, p. 12, filed opinions concurring in the judgment.

REHNQUIST, J., lead opinion

OPINION

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

A Florida Highway Patrol trooper stopped respondent Wells for speeding. After smelling alcohol on Wells' breath, the trooper arrested Wells for driving under the influence. Wells then agreed to accompany the trooper to the station to take a breathalyzer test. The trooper informed Wells that the car would be impounded, and obtained Wells' permission to open the trunk. At the impoundment facility, an inventory search of the car turned up two marijuana cigarette butts in an ashtray and a locked suitcase in the trunk. Under the trooper's direction, employees of the facility forced open the suitcase and discovered a garbage bag containing a considerable amount of marijuana.

Wells was charged with possession of a controlled substance. His motion to suppress the marijuana on the ground that it was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was denied by the trial court.

Page 3

He thereupon pleaded nolo contendere to the charge, but reserved his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. On appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District held, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying suppression of the marijuana found in the suitcase. Over a dissent, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed. 539 So.2d 464, 469 (1989). We granted certiorari, 491 U.S. 903 (1989), and now affirm (although we disagree with part of the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Florida).

The Supreme Court of Florida relied on the opinions in Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987); id. at 376 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring). Referring to language in the Bertine concurrence and a footnote in the majority opinion, the court held. that:

[i]n the absence of a policy specifically requiring the opening of closed containers found during a legitimate inventory search, Bertine prohibits us from countenancing the procedure followed in this instance.

539 So.2d at 469. According to the court, the record contained no evidence of any Highway Patrol policy on the opening of closed containers found during inventory searches. Ibid. The court added, however, that:

[110 S.Ct. 1635]

[t]he police under Bertine must mandate either that all containers will be opened during an inventory search, or that no containers will be opened. There can be no room for discretion.

Ibid.

While this latter statement of the Supreme Court of Florida derived support from a sentence in the Bertine concurrence taken in isolation, we think it is at odds with the thrust of both the concurrence and the opinion of the Court in that case. We said in Bertine:

[n]othing in [South Dakota v.] Opperman[, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)] or [Illinois v.] Lafayette[, 462 U.S. 640 (1983)] prohibits the exercise of police discretion so long as that

Page 4

discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity.

479 U.S. at 375. Our view that standardized criteria, ibid., or established routine, Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 648 (1983), must regulate the opening of containers found during inventory searches is based on the principle that an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. The policy or practice governing inventory searches should be designed to produce an inventory. The individual police officer must not be allowed so much latitude that inventory searches are turned into "a purposeful and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP