New York Immigration Lawyers

Home ›› Court Opinions Topics & Themes   Asset Forfeitures   Conspiracy   Drug Policy Opinion   Drugs: Types, Dosages, Effects   First Amendment   Justiciability   Medicinal Marijuana   Policy Considerations   Proportionality   Reasonable Expectation of Privacy   Searches and Seizures      Airports      Borders      Consent      Drug Testing      Dwellings      Exclusionary Rule      Grounds for a Search      Informants      Mail      Nuances of Detention      Personal Items      Private Action      Roads and Vehicles      Tools and Augmentation      Warrants   Sentencing and Penalties Authors Trivia

Court Opinions ›› Colorado v. Bertine (1987) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 85-889 1987.SCT.287 , 479 U.S. 367, 107 S. Ct. 738, 93 L. Ed. 2d 739, 55 U.S.L.W. 4105 January 14, 1987 COLORADO v. BERTINE CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO. A Boulder, Colorado, police officer arrested respondent for driving his van while under the influence of alcohol. After respondent was taken into custody and before a tow truck arrived to take the van to an impoundment lot, another officer, acting in accordance with local police procedures, inventoried the van's contents, opening a closed backpack in which he found various containers holding controlled substances, cocaine paraphernalia, and a large amount of cash. Prior to his trial on charges including drug offenses, the state trial court granted respondent's motion to suppress the evidence found during the inventory search. Although the court determined that the search did not violate respondent's rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, it held that the search violated the Colorado Constitution. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, but premised its ruling on the Federal Constitution. Held: The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the State from proving the criminal charges with the evidence discovered during the inventory search of respondent's van. Opinion by: REHNQUIST The Honorable Justice MARSHALL, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, dissenting: Inventory searches are not subject to the warrant requirement because they are conducted by the government as part of a "community caretaking" function, "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S., at 441. Standardized procedures are necessary to ensure that this narrow exception is not improperly used to justify, after the fact, a warrantless investigative foray. Accordingly, to invalidate a search that is conducted without established procedures, it is not necessary to establish that the police actually acted in bad faith, or that the inventory was in fact a "pretext." By allowing the police unfettered discretion, Boulder's discretionary scheme [...] is unreasonable because of the "'grave danger' of abuse of discretion." [...] In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 461-462 (1971), a plurality of this Court stated: "The word 'automobile' is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears." By upholding the search in this case, the Court not only ignores that principle, but creates another talisman to overcome the requirements of the Fourth Amendment -- the term "inventory." [...]

Drug Info - list of authority sites on various drugs. StopTheDrugWar.org Media Awareness Project Drug War Facts - just what the website name says. Very informative. Cigarettes © 2007 Yakov Spektor Privacy Policy