Colorado v. Bertine 479 U.S. 367, 107 S. Ct. 738, 93 L. Ed.2d 739 (1987) Bertine was arrested for drunk driving. Since he couldn't drive home, the police towed his van to the impound lot. At the impound lot the police performed an administrative search of van for inventory purposes. Inside a backpack in the van, they found a pile of drugs. Bertine was arrest for drug possession. At trial, Bertine made a motion to suppress on the grounds that the police did not have probable cause or a warrant to search his bag. Therefore the search was a violation of the 4th Amendment. The Trial Judge granted the motion and dismissed the case. The prosecutor appealed. The Trial Judge based his opinion on the Colorado Constitution. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed. The prosecutor appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court based their decision on the 4th Amendment. The US Supreme Court reversed and found that the search was not a violation of the 4th Amendment. The US Supreme Court found that reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith do not result in a violation of the 4th Amendment. The Court found that an inventory search is reasonable, because it deters theft and is protects the police from potentially dangerous objects left in cars. The Court noted that searches conducted primarily for reasons other than law enforcement do not require probable cause. "The standard of probable cause is peculiarly related to criminal investigation, not routine, non-criminal procedures." "The probable cause approach is unhelpful when analysis centers upon the reasonableness of administrative caretaking function, particularly when no claim is made that the protective procedures are a subterfuge for criminal investigations." The Court noted that the search was standard for everyone who's car entered the impound lot, and no one was being singled out. If there was a discretionary component to which cars got searched, the program would probably have not been legal. Note that the Court recognized that the search must still be reasonable, its just that reasonable is not defined as having probable cause. In a dissent, it was argued that Bertine had a reasonable expectation of privacy that his backpack would not be searched and that the government's interest in its administrative procedures was outweighed by Bertine's expectation. Technically, the policeman who arrested Bertine could have looked in the bag anyway, as a search incident to lawful arrest.