Gant's Limitation on Vehicle Searches Incident to Arrest
In 2009, the United State Supreme Court narrowed the scope of when a vehicle search incident to arrest is permissible.

August 07, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- In 2009, the United State Supreme Court narrowed the scope of when a vehicle search incident to arrest is permissible. The Court ruled that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. If not, police may still search though, if it is reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest. Otherwise, the police must obtain a warrant or show that some other exception to the warrant requirement applies.

Warrantless Searches

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, subject to established exceptions. A search incident to lawful arrest is among the exceptions to the warrant requirement, derived from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation. Not all searches incident to arrest are reasonable and the Supreme Court has addressed this issue with some fluidity over time.

Chimel v. California

In 1969, the Court decided Chimel v. California, finding that a search incident to arrest is justified only when reasonably necessary for officer safety or to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence. The Court held that the search may only include the arrestee's person and the area within his or her immediate control -- meaning that area within which he or she might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.

New York v. Belton

In 1981, the Court revisited the search incident to arrest issue in New York v. Belton, making the requirement that the arrestee actually be able to reach the weapon or evidence more theoretical. In Belton, a lone officer stopped a speeding car with four occupants. When the officer approached the car, he smelled burnt marijuana and saw an envelope labeled "Supergold", a name he associated with marijuana. He then ordered everyone out of the vehicle, placed them under arrest and patted them down. Without handcuffing them, the officer then split the arrestees into four separate areas and searched the backseat of the vehicle, including the pocket of a jacket lying in the backseat. He found cocaine in the pocket.

In Belton, the Supreme Court held that when an officer lawfully arrests the occupant of an automobile, it is reasonable, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, to search the passenger compartment of the automobile and any containers therein. The court stated that the passenger compartments of a vehicle are generally, if not inevitably, within the area into which an arrestee might reach.

Arizona v. Gant

In Arizona v. Gant, the officers had already handcuffed Gant and placed him in the backseat of the patrol car, based on a warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license. After Gant was placed in the patrol car, two officers searched his car and found a gun and cocaine in the pocket of a jacket in the backseat.

The Court acknowledged that since Belton, lower courts had treated the ability to search a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent occupant as a police entitlement, rather than as an exception to the warrant requirement. However, Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, declared that Belton in no way altered the fundamental principles established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests.

The Court explained that permitting a bright-line rule allowing all searches of a vehicle incident to arrest undervalues motorists' privacy interests in their vehicles and exaggerates the clarity offered, as courts have disagreed on how close in time and proximity to the vehicle the search must be.

However, apart from Chimel, the Court acknowledged circumstances unique to the vehicle context that justify a search incident to lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.

Here, neither exception applied. Gant was secured in the back seat of the patrol car and not within reaching distance of the car, eliminating the concern for officer safety. Also, Gant was arrested on a warrant for driving on a suspended license, so it was not reasonable to think the officers would find evidence relating to that offense in a search of Gant's vehicle. Therefore, the search was unreasonable.

An experienced attorney can provide answers to those with questions concerning their Fourth Amendment rights and privacy interests. For those already in custody, obtaining prompt legal representation can help ensure protection of the defendants' constitutional rights.

Press Release Contact Information:

Findlaw PR