Opperman was arrested later that day and charged with possession of marijuana. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. See, e.g., People v. Sullivan, supra at 77, 272 N.E.2d at 469; People v. Willis, 46 Mich.App. The citation warned: At approximately 10 o'clock on the same morning, another [p366] officer issued a second ticket for an overtime parking violation. On this record, we conclude that, in following standard police procedures prevailing throughout the country and approved by the overwhelming majority of courts, the conduct of the police was not "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. SOUTH DAKOTA v. OPPERMAN(1976) No. Petitioner, however, has expressly abandoned the contention that the inventory in this case is exempt from the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness. ). The procedural disposition (e.g. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. Lyerla appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of South Dakota. Cancel anytime. ___, 228 N.W.2d 152. denied, 404 U.S. 854 (1971); United States v. Boyd, 436 F.2d 1203 (CA5 1971); Cotton v. United States, 371 F.2d 385 (CA9 1967). You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. His motion to … Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of Get State v. Lyerla, 424 N.W.2d 908 (1988), Supreme Court of South Dakota, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Accord, Lowe v. Hopper, 400 F.Supp. 436, 208 N.W.2d 204 (1973); State v. Wallen, 185 Neb. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA When the truck tried to pass him, Lyerla fired three shots at the passenger side of the truck. Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. This website requires JavaScript. The standard of probable cause is peculiarly related to criminal investigations, not routine, noncriminal procedures. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. SOUTH DAKOTA v. OPPERMAN(1976) No. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. He was convicted but the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed on appeal and concluded the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. People v. Cooper, 234 Cal.App.2d 587, 596, 44 Cal.Rptr. The defendant did not take the stand either at the … Even though the inventory was conducted in a distinctly criminal setting [7] and carried out a week after the car had been impounded, the Court nonetheless found that the car search, including examination of the glove compartment where contraband was found, was reasonable under the circumstances. Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. Besides the element of mobility, less rigorous warrant requirements govern because the expectation of privacy with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office. Opperman was sentenced to 14 days in jail and fined $100. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case . 75-76. But the Court has also upheld warrantless searches where no immediate danger was presented that the car would be removed from the jurisdiction. Only two Terms ago, the Court noted: In the interests of public safety and as part of what the Court has called "community caretaking functions," Cady v. Dombrowski, supra at 441, automobiles are frequently taken into police custody.