In Colorado v. Bertine, 55 L.W. 4103 (1987), the suspect had been arrested for driving under the
influence of alcohol. Before a tow truck arrived to take the vehicle to an impound lot, a police officer
inventoried the vehicle. Cocaine was discovered inside of a backpack. The Court held that the
inventory was done "in accordance with local police procedures, which require a detailed inspection
and inventory of impounded vehicles." Such inventories "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." The Court recognized the need for "police caretaking procedures designed to
secure and protect vehicles and their contents within police custody." Here, there was no showing of
bad faith. Also, the police "were potentially responsible for the property taken into their control. By
securing the property, the police protected the property from unauthorized interference. Knowledge of
the precise nature of the property helped guard against claims of theft, vandalism, or negligence."
Although the police could have given the owner an opportunity to make alternative arrangements
(which might have been less intrusive), they were not required to do so: "Reasonable police regulations
relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment, even though
the courts might as a matter of hindsight be able to devise equally reasonable rules requiring a different
procedure." Also, the fact that the vehicle could have simply been taken to a secure storage area did
not eliminate the need for an inventory. On the contrary, "the police may still wish to protect
themselves or the owners of the lot against false claims of theft or dangerous instrumentalities."
The court cited Illinois v. Lafayette, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983), another case decided by the U.S.
Supreme Court. There, the Court upheld an inventory of a shoulder bag which was carried by a person
who was taken to the police station under arrest. This inventory procedure "not only deters false claims
but also inhibits theft or careless handling of articles taken from the arrested person. Arrested persons
have also been known to injure themselves or others--with belts, knives, drugs, or other items on their
person while being detained. Dangerous instrumentalities--such as razor blades, bombs, or weapons--
can be concealed in innocent-looking articles taken from the arrestee's possession...Examining all the
items removed from the arrestee's person or possession and listing or inventorying them is an entirely
reasonable administrative procedure." The Court concluded that "every consideration of orderly police
administration benefiting both police and the public points toward the appropriateness of the
examination of respondent's shoulder bag prior to his incarceration." It served "important and legitimate
governmental interests."
Running through these cases are two crucial points. First, the police can point to reasonable
grounds for having conducted the inventory. There is a need to protect the property. When the police
take an individual into custody, they do not want to simply leave his automobile on the highway. The
result may be a claim against the police department for negligence. The vehicle battery or tires may be
stolen; in fact, the entire car may be stolen. Unless some precaution is taken to guard against this
possibility, the police may be inviting claims against the government. Again, this is a reasonable basis
for the inventory. The courts recognize the need for safeguarding the property, and the related need of
protecting the police against fraudulent claims.
MP1021
1-66
Previous Page
