Florida v. Wells

Citation109 L.Ed.2d 1,495 U.S. 1,110 S.Ct. 1632
Decision Date18 April 1990
Docket NumberNo. 88-1835,88-1835
PartiesFLORIDA, Petitioner v. Martin Leslie WELLS
CourtUnited States Supreme Court
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, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739, requires police to mandate either that all containers be opened during such searches, or that no containers be opened, leaving no 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 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.

Michael J. Neimand, Miami, Fla., for petitioner.

Huntley Johnson, Gainesville, Fla., for respondent.

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. 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, 109 S.Ct. 3183, 105 L.Ed.2d 692 (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, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); id., at 376, 107 S.Ct., at 743 (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:

"[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, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976),] or [Illinois v.] Lafayette [, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983),] prohibits the exercise of police discretion so long as that 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, 107 S.Ct., at 743.

Our view that standardized criteria, ibid., or established routine, Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 648, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 2610, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (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 general means of discovering evidence of crime," Bertine, 479 U.S., at 376, 107 S.Ct., at 743 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring).

But in forbidding uncanalized discretion to police officers conducting inventory searches, there is no reason to insist that they be conducted in a totally mechanical "all or nothing" fashion. "[I]nventory procedures serve to protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger." Id., at 372, 107 S.Ct., at 741; see also South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3097, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). A police officer may be allowed sufficient latitude to determine whether a particular container should or should not be opened in light of the nature of the search and characteristics of the container itself. Thus, while policies of opening all containers or of opening no containers are unquestionably permissible, it would be equally permissible, for example, to allow the opening of closed containers whose contents officers determine they are unable to ascertain from examining the containers' exteriors. The allowance of the exercise of judgment based on concerns related to the purposes of an inventory search does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

In the present case, the Supreme Court of Florida found that the Florida Highway Patrol had no policy whatever with respect to the opening of closed containers encountered dur- ing an inventory search. We hold that absent such a policy, the instant search was not sufficiently regulated to satisfy the Fourth Amendment and that the marijuana which was found in the suitcase, therefore, was properly suppressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. Its judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Justice BRENNAN, with whom Justice MARSHALL joins, concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the Court that the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court should be affirmed because the Florida Highway Patrol had no policy at all with respect to opening closed containers. As the majority recognizes, see ante, at 4 and this page, the search was therefore unconstitutional under any reading of our cases. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 374, 107 S.Ct. 738, 742, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987) (opening closed container found in a vehicle during an inventory search constitutional only because policy mandated opening of such containers). Our cases have required that inventory searches be "sufficiently regulated," ante, this page, so as to avoid the possibility that police will abuse their power to conduct such a search. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 384, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3104, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring) ("[N]o significant discretion is placed in the hands of the individual officer: he usually has no choice as to the subject of the search or its scope").

The facts of this case demonstrate a prime danger of insufficiently regulated inventory searches: police may use the excuse of an "inventory search" as a pretext for broad searches of vehicles and their contents. In this case, there was no evidence that the inventory search was done in accordance with any standardized inventory procedure. Although the State characterized the search as an inventory search in the trial court, it did not point to any standard policy governing inventory searches of vehicles (much less to any policy governing the opening of closed containers) until the case reached the Florida Supreme Court. At that time, which was after our decision in Bertine, supra, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1054 cases
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 2020
    ...not be opened in light of the nature of the search and characteristics of the container itself." ( Florida v. Wells (1990) 495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 ( Florida ).) Inventory searches are typically performed by police when vehicles are impounded "[i]n the interests of publi......
  • People v. Buza, A125542
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 4, 2011
    ...Court has permitted some suspicionless searches when they are subject to 'standardized criteria, or established routine.' Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990) . . . . However, the Court has been careful to caution that such 'programmatic' searches may not be used as 'a ruse for a general ......
  • State v. Dixon
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1993
    ...958 n. 5 (D.Md.1982); State v. Wells, 539 So.2d 464, 465, 468 n. 4 (Fla.1989), aff'd on other grounds sub nom., Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); People v. Regnet, 443 N.Y.S.2d 642, 644 (1981). The scope of permission granted in these cases was much more br......
  • Com. v. Danforth
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • June 14, 1990
    ..."request or submit" provision applicable to all such drivers could pass constitutional muster. Cf. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) ( 1990 WL 43473); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979); Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 517 Pa. 27......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 books & journal articles
  • Appendix E
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...of recent occupant]; Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 [pat-down search]; Florida v. Wells (1990) 495 U.S. 1 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 [routine inventory search]; Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 [search in......
  • Motor Vehicle Searches
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2017 Contents
    • August 4, 2017
    ...than conducting a complete inventory when taking custody of a vehicle. Colorado v. Bertine , 479 U.S. 367 (1987). In Florida v. Wells , 495 U.S. 1 (1990), the Court noted that the “policy or practice governing inventory searches should be designed to produce an inventory,” and that such pol......
  • Search and Seizure: Property
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2016 Contents
    • August 17, 2016
    ...is not sufficiently regulated to satisfy the Fourth Amendment and the fruits of such inventories are properly suppressed. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 A police officer may be allowed sufficient latitude to determine whether a particular container should or sho......
  • Search and Seizure: Property
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2018 Contents
    • August 17, 2018
    ...is not sufficiently regulated to satisfy the Fourth Amendment and the fruits of such inventories are properly suppressed. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). A police officer may be allowed sufficient latitude to determine whether a particular container shoul......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT