Connection lost
Server error
South Dakota v. Opperman Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Police lawfully impounded a car for parking violations and found marijuana during a routine inventory search of the glove compartment. The Supreme Court held this warrantless search, conducted under standard procedures, was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Legal Significance: Establishes the “inventory search” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for lawfully impounded vehicles. Such searches are permissible as a “community caretaking function” if they follow standardized, non-investigatory police procedures and are deemed reasonable under the circumstances.
South Dakota v. Opperman Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Donald Opperman’s vehicle was illegally parked overnight in a restricted zone in Vermillion, South Dakota. After the car received two parking tickets over several hours, police towed it to the city impound lot. At the lot, an officer observed personal items, including a watch on the dashboard, inside the car. Following standard police procedure, the officer conducted an inventory search to secure the contents. The officer unlocked the car and inventoried items in the main cabin and the unlocked glove compartment. Inside the glove compartment, the officer discovered a plastic bag containing marijuana. Opperman was subsequently arrested and charged with possession. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence found during the inventory search, and he was convicted. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the conviction, holding that the inventory search violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a routine inventory search of a lawfully impounded automobile, conducted pursuant to standard police procedures without a warrant or probable cause, violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
No. The warrantless inventory search of the impounded vehicle, including its unlocked Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit i
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a routine inventory search of a lawfully impounded automobile, conducted pursuant to standard police procedures without a warrant or probable cause, violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Conclusion
This case created a significant exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud e
Legal Rule
A routine inventory search of a lawfully impounded automobile, conducted pursuant to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the "reasonableness" standard of the Fourth Amendment, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A routine inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle is reasonable