South Dakota vs Opperman PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief...

Description

Kara Chrispen CS 305-01 South Dakota vs. Opperman 428 U.S. 364 (1976) FACTS: At 3 A.M. on December 10, 1973 a police officer issued an overtime parking ticket for a car that was parked in a zone during illegal hours. This car was owned by Donald Opperman. The next day at approximately 10 o’clock there was another ticket issued to the car. After this ticket the car was inspected and taken to the impound lot. When it was at the impound lot a police officer noticed a watch and some other items in the car. The officer had the door unlocked and inventoried the items in the car. While inventorying the car there was marijuana found in a plastic bag. All items found were taken to the police department for safekeeping. Opperman appeared at the police station later that day to claim his property. The marijuana was retained by the police. At trial, the officer said that he inventoried the car for safekeeping because there had been trouble in the past from people breaking into cars and taking back their things. Opperman was arrested on possession of marijuana. The motion to suppress was denied and he was sentenced to 14 days in jail and a 100 dollar fine. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the conviction because they said it violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. QUESTION: Is it unreasonable to search the entire inside of an impounded car? NO OPINION: Burger C.J. 1. Cars are impounded and inspected for three reasons a. The protection of the owner’s property while it is in police custody b. The protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property c. The protection of the police from potential danger 2. Police also try to determine if the car is stolen or abandoned at this time 3. The person did not have any interest in keeping his belongings concealed, because he left his car parked illegally for an extended period of time 4. This conduct was not unreasonable 5. Judgment is reversed and remanded DISSENT: Marshall, J., joined by Brennan, J. and Stewart, J. 1. The court thinks that this search is reasonable under these three conditions, but it does not 2. There is no safety concern here a. There is never really a concern for safety to impound cars 3. There was no effort to find any dangerous weapons or anything like that 4. There is only supposed to be an inventory of objects in plain view 5. Someone should have to consent to an inventory 6. This puts property interests above privacy STATEMENT: White, J.

Kara Chrispen CS 305-01 1. I do not agree with everything that Marshall says, but I still dissent because I agree that there should be consent from the owner....