462 U.S. 640 (1983)
On September 1, 1980, at about 10 p.m., Officer Maurice Mietzner of the Kankakee City Police arrived at the Town Cinema in Kankakee, Illinois, in response to a call about a disturbance.1 There he found respondent involved in an altercation with the theater manager.2 He arrested respondent for disturbing the peace, handcuffed him, and took him to the police station, where respondent carried a purse-type shoulder bag on the trip.3
At the police station respondent was taken to the booking room.4 Officer Mietzner removed the handcuffs from respondent and ordered him to empty his pockets and place the contents on the counter.5 After doing so, respondent took a package of cigarettes from his shoulder bag and placed the bag on the counter.6 Mietzner then removed the contents of the bag and found 10 amphetamine pills inside the plastic wrap of a cigarette package.7
Respondent was subsequently charged with violating section 402(b) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act on the basis of the controlled substances found in his shoulder bag.8 A pretrial suppression hearing was held at which Officer Mietzner testified that he examined the bag's contents because it was standard procedure to inventory everything in the possession of an arrested person.9 He testified that he was not seeking and did not expect to find drugs or weapons when he searched the bag, and he conceded that the shoulder bag was small enough that it could have been placed and sealed in a bag, container, or locker for protective purposes.10 After the hearing, but before any ruling, the State submitted a brief arguing for the first time that the search was valid as a delayed search incident to arrest.11 The trial court ordered the suppression of the amphetamine pills.12
On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the suppression order.13 The Illinois Supreme Court denied discretionary review.14 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.15
Whether, at the time an arrested person arrives at a police station, the police may, without obtaining a warrant, search a shoulder bag carried by that person?16
A so-called inventory search is not an independent legal concept but rather an incidental administrative step following arrest and preceding incarceration. To determine whether the search of respondent's shoulder bag was unreasonable we must balance its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. The governmental interests underlying a station-house search of the arrestee's person and possessions may in some circumstances be even greater than those supporting a search immediately following arrest.17
Yes. The search of respondent's shoulder bag was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted as part of the routine administrative procedure at the police station house incident to booking and jailing the suspect.18 The justification does not rest on probable cause.19 The inventory search serves to protect the owner's property, protect police against false claims of theft, and ensure safety by discovering dangerous instrumentalities.20
These interests were present when Officer Mietzner followed standard procedure to inventory everything in the possession of the arrested respondent upon arrival at the station, removing the contents of the shoulder bag and discovering the pills.21 The Illinois court's suggestion of less intrusive means by sealing the bag does not render the search unreasonable, as the Fourth Amendment does not require such alternatives when standardized procedures are followed.22
The search of the shoulder bag was valid under the Fourth Amendment.23
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brennan
Justice Marshall concurred in the judgment.24 He agreed that police do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct an inventory search prior to incarcerating a suspect.25 The practical necessities of securing persons and property in a jailhouse setting justify an inventory search as part of the standard procedure incident to incarceration.26
However, he emphasized that a very different case would be presented if the State had relied solely on the fact of arrest to justify the search of respondent’s shoulder bag.27 A warrantless search incident to arrest must be justified by a need to remove weapons or prevent the destruction of evidence.28 Officer Mietzner did not deem it necessary to search the bag when he arrested respondent.29
Marshall doubted that such a search would have been lawful at the time of arrest.30 There is no evidence or fruits of the offense of disturbing the peace.31 A concern about weapons could not have justified the further step of searching the bag following its seizure.32