In Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367, Boulder City police effected a custodial arrest of defendant Bertine for driving under the influence of alcohol. A backup officer conducted an inventory search of defendant's van before having it towed and found contraband and cash. (Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. 367, 368-369.) The officers had decided to impound the vehicle under authority of a Colorado statute almost identical to Vehicle Code section 22651, subdivision (h) - the initial authority on which the CHP officers relied in this case. (See Bertine, supra, at p. 368, fn. 1; cf. fn. 1, ante.) The United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that the inventory search of the van was unconstitutional because the Colorado statute and departmental regulations gave the police discretion to choose between impounding it or locking it in a public place. The majority held, in effect, that Fourth Amendment protections did not "prohibit the exercise of police discretion so long as that discretion was exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity." (Bertine, supra, at p. 375.) Noting there had been no showing that the police had chosen to impound the van in order to investigate suspected criminal activity or otherwise acted in bad faith, the majority concluded the Bolder police had exercised their discretion "in light of standardized criteria" (id. at pp. 375-376) - a police directive that both "circumscribeed the discretion of individual officers" and also protected the vehicle and its contents and minimized claims of property loss. (Id. at p. 376, fn. 7.) In Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367, the high court recognized that police have a legitimate interest in taking an inventory of the contents of a vehicle, including closed containers inside that vehicle, before towing it. This inventory serves 'to protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger.' (Id. at p. 372 . . ..) The court stated that 'inventory searches are now a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.' (Id. at p. 371 . . . .) Nevertheless, the court also recognized the risk that police might use an inventory of this kind as a pretext for searching a vehicle for contraband or other evidence. (Id. at pp. 375-376 . . . .) Accordingly, the court emphasized that police must 'follow standardized procedures.' (Id. at p. 372 . . .; see also id. at p. 374, fn. 6 . . . .) 'Reasonable police regulations relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment.' (Id. at p. 374 . . . .) The United States Supreme Court addressed the impound/inventory issue in Colorado v. Bertine. Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence and his vehicle was impounded. An officer inventoried the contents of the vehicle before the tow truck arrived, and opened several canisters and containers which contained narcotics. Defendant challenged the search of the closed containers and argued that it exceeded the scope of such a search. ( Id. at pp. 368-369.) Bertine reiterated that inventory searches "are now a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment." ( Id. at p. 371.) There was no showing that the police, who were following standardized procedures for inventorying an impounded car, were acting in bad faith or chose to impound the vehicle for the sole purpose of investigating criminal activity. ( Id. at pp. 375-376.) The inventory search was justified by the governmental interest of securing property for which the police were responsible. ( Id. at pp. 372-373.) Bertine rejected defendant's argument that an inventory was unnecessary because the vehicle was going to be stored in a secure, lighted facility: "But the security of the storage facility does not completely eliminate the need for inventorying; the police may still wish to protect themselves or the owners of the lot against false claims of theft or dangerous instrumentalities." ( Colorado v. Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 373.) Reasonable police regulations "relating to inventory procedures administered in good faith satisfy the Fourth Amendment, even though courts might as a matter of hindsight be able to devise equally reasonable rules requiring a different procedure." ( Id. at p. 374.) Bertine also rejected defendant's argument that the inventory search was unconstitutional because departmental regulations gave the police officers discretion to choose between impounding his van and parking and locking it in a public parking place: "Nothing in Opperman or Illinois v. Lafayette, supra, 462 U.S. 640 . . . prohibits the exercise of police discretion so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. Here, the discretion afforded the Boulder police was exercised in light of standardized criteria, related to the feasibility and appropriateness of parking and locking a vehicle rather than impounding it. There was no showing that the police chose to impound Bertine's van in order to investigate suspected criminal activity." ( Colorado v. Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at pp. 375-376.) The court noted that the written directives of the Boulder Police Department set out several conditions before the officer could choose the "park and lock" alternative. ( Colorado v. Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 376, fn. 7.)