Recent Updates
April 28, 2010
State Must Prove Defendant's Knowledge of Driver's License Suspension
April 13, 2010
Sentencing Commission Votes to Eliminate Recent Criminal History Points
October 15, 2009
Consent to search inside of vehicle does not extend to locked containers
October 14, 2009
Making phone calls to get drugs for personal use not a felony
October 07, 2009
Duval County schools agree to reduce number of students getting arrested
Major change in understanding of Supreme Court stance on searches incident to arrest
July 31, 2009
Topic: Criminal
The Supreme Court in the case of Arizona v. Gant, 129 S Ct 1710 changed nearly three decades of law where police were allowed to search the inside of a car after an arrest was made for a traffic offense. After Gant, police may now search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest
In Gant, the defendant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and placed into a patrol car before officers searched his car and found cocaine in a jacket pocket. The Arizona trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, and he was convicted of drug offenses. Reversing, the State Supreme Court of Arizona reversed years of interpreting the seminal case of New York v. Belton, to allow searches wether the defendant still had access to the potential contraband, even though the defendant was now secured and away from the compartment. The Arizona Supreme Court also took the step to distinguish Chimel v. California, which allowed a search incident to arrest if officer safety or the interest in preserving evidence.
It is easy to say that 90 percent of search law cases have to do with searches incident to traffic stops.
At issue is protections given by the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens "against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The attorneys for the state of Arizona argued that the expansive reading of Belton that had been adopted by court balances law enforcement interests with an arrestee's "limited privacy interest in his vehicle."
Gant's attorneys countered that NAFD also argues that officers are fully able to protect the integrity of evidence and their own safety without conducting an otherwise unnecessary search. See Brief of NAFD at 18-21. For instance, officers who secure a vehicle as part of a crime scene can protect evidence by controlling access to the vehicle. See id. at 19. The Court sided with Gant, stating that Arizona's reading "seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake, and it exaggerates both the clarity provided by a broad reading of Belton and its importance to law enforcement interests. The Court also stated that Belton, as well as the Court's decisions in Thornton v. United States, Michigan v. Long and United States v. Ross permit an officer to search a vehicle when safety or evidentiary concerns demand.
Although officer's may arguably be able to get much of the same evidence through post-arrest inventory searches, this is one of the few Fourth Amendment victories for defendants in Fourth Amendment issues before the Supreme Court in many years.
