 |
This article relies excessively on referencestoprimary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources.
Find sources: "Colorado v. Bertine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Colorado v. Bertine | |
|---|---|
| |
| Argued November 10, 1986 Decided January 14, 1987 | |
| Full case name | Colorado v. Steven Lee Bertine |
| Docket no. | 85-889 |
| Citations | 479 U.S. 367 (more) 107 S. Ct. 738; 93 L. Ed. 2d 739 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | People v. Bertine, 706 P.2d 411 (Colo. 1985); cert. granted, 475 U.S. 1081 (1986). |
| Holding | |
| 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. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia |
| Concurrence | Blackmun, joined by Powell, O'Connor |
| Dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the State from proving charges with the evidence discovered during an inventory search.[1]
This case is controlled by the principles governing inventory searches of automobiles and of an arrestee's personal effects, as set forth in South Dakota v. Opperman,[2] and Illinois v. Lafayette,[3] rather than those governing searches of closed trunks and suitcases conducted solely for the purpose of investigating criminal conduct. United States v. Chadwick,[4] and Arkansas v. Sanders,[5] distinguished.[1]
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
