Citation network
Colorado Vs. Bertine
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 14, 1987
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 367 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Colorado v. BertineSearch
-
U.S. 367 (1987) Colorado v. BertineSearch
-
governing inventory searches of automobiles and of an arrestee's personal effects, as set forth in South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
U. S. 364 , and Illinois v. LafayetteSearch
-
of closed trunks and suitcases conducted solely for the purpose of investigating criminal conduct. United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
U. S. 1 , and Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Supreme Court premised its ruling on the United States Constitution. The court recognized that, in South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
we had held inventory searches of automobiles to be consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and that, in Illinois v. LafayetteSearch
-
was also permissible under that Amendment. The Supreme Court of Colorado felt, however, that our decisions in Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
U. S. 753 (1979), and United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
Ibid. See also United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
supra, at 433 U. S. 10 , n. 5. For these reasons, the Colorado Supreme Court's reliance on Arkansas v. SandersSearch
-
supra, and United States v. ChadwickSearch
-
caretaking procedures designed to secure and protect vehicles and their contents within police custody. See Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
Lafayette, 462 U.S. at 462 U. S. 647 (emphasis in original). See Cady v. DombrowskiSearch
-
in Page 479 U. S. 375 Opperman and Lafayette, and by analogy to our decision in United States v. RossSearch
-
Lafayette, supra, at 462 U. S. 648 (quoting New York v. BeltonSearch
-
Two justices dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
and Illinois v. LafayetteSearch
-
Since our decision in South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
police may inventory the contents of containers found in vehicles taken into police custody. See, e.g., United States v. GriffinSearch
-
United States v. BloomfieldSearch
-
People v. BraaschSearch
-
People v. GonzalezSearch
-
Boggs v. CommonwealthSearch
-
U.S. at 428 U. S. 371 (quoting United States v. GravittSearch
-
that police officers are not vested with discretion to determine the scope of the inventory search. See South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
be labeled an inventory -- was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. Unlike the inventories in South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
U. S. 364 (1976), and Illinois v. LafayetteSearch
-
U. S. 648 , 440 U. S. 661 (1979). See Almeida-Sanchez v. UnitedSearch
-
Camara v. MunicipalSearch
-
By allowing the police unfettered discretion, Boulder's discretionary scheme, like the random spot checks in Delaware v. ProuseSearch
-
U.S. at 440 U. S. 662 . II In South Dakota v. OppermanSearch
-
was arrested that suggests he was likely to be carrying weapons, explosives, or other dangerous items. Cf. Cady v. DombrowskiSearch
-
containers to inventory the contents can only increase the risk. In the words of the District Court in United States v. CooperSearch
-
plausibly be argued that, in his absence, the police were entitled to act for his presumed benefit. See also Cady v. DombrowskiSearch
-
Cooper v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. at 428 U. S. 380 , and n. 7 (POWELL, J., concurring) (quoting California Bankers Assn. v. ShultzSearch
-
to include containers in which the owner clearly has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Court relies on Illinois v. LafayetteSearch
-
clearly establish that he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpack and its contents. See Arkansas v. SandersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial