Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.

“ Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590-591 (1974) (plurality opinion) , the unrestrained search [p380] of an automobile and its contents would constitute a serious intrusion upon the privacy of the individual in many circumstances. But such a search is not at issue in this case. As the Court's opinion emphasizes, the search here was limited to an inventory of the unoccupied automobile, and was conducted strictly in accord with the regulations of the Vermillion Police Department. [6] Upholding searches of this type provides no general license for the police to examine all the contents of such automobiles. ”

“ There is, however, no evidence in the record that, in carrying out their established inventory duties, the Vermillion police do other than search for and remove for storage such property without examining its contents.
↑ . The Amendment provides that
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

“ Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences [concerning probable cause] be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate, instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. ”

“ The harmful consequences in those rare cases may be great, and there does not appear to be any effective way of identifying in advance those circumstances or classes of automobile impoundments which represent a greater risk. ”

“ And, while the same security could be attained by posting a guard at the storage lot, that alternative may be prohibitively expensive, especially for smaller jurisdictions. [5]
Against these interests must be weighed the citizen's interest in the privacy of the contents of his automobile. Although the expectation of privacy in an automobile is significantly less than the traditional expectation of privacy associated with the home, United States v. ”