Arizona v. Gant deals with warrantless searches of a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest. Gant establishes new, more specific precedence in this area of law. The case was appealed from the Supreme Court of Arizona to the United States Supreme Court. The case was heard on April 21, 2009.
Rodney Gant was at a friend’s residence where an anonymous tip had led officers to believe it was a drug house. The officers went to the house and talked to Rodney who let them know the owner was not home. The officers checked Mr. Gant’s record and found out he had a suspended drivers license. Later that evening while the officers were waiting for the owner of the house, Mr. Gant arrived in his vehicle, parking it in the driveway. He walked towards the officers and was immediately arrested for driving with a suspended license about 10-12 feet away from his car. Gant and other suspects were placed in separate patrol cars. The officers subsequently searched Mr. Gant’s car where they found a gun and cocaine. He was charged with possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.
The case revolved around two Supreme Court decisions discussing warrantless searches incident to arrest, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), and New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).
In Chimel, the court held that a search incident to arrest may only include “the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’”. Basically any area where the person might be able to grab a weapon or evidence that could be destroyed. The purpose of the rule is to protect officers and safeguard any evidence that the arrestee might hide or destroy. If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into an area that officers want to search, neither justification is present and the rule does not apply.
In Belton, Chimel’s application is considered in the automobile context. The court in Belton held that when an officer arrests an occupant of a vehicle, the officer may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle and any containers as a contemporaneous search incident to arrest.
The problem is the Belton opinion was not specific enough. Was it meant to extend the Chimel decision to the context of an automobile where you could only search incident to an arrest if the person might be able to grab a weapon or evidence? Or was the decision broad, extending to virtually any arrest of an occupant of a vehicle (no matter where the occupant of the vehicle may be)?
The court states that interpreting Belton broadly essentially creates a rule that gives police the power to conduct a search every single time they conduct a traffic stop, going against the heart of the 4th Amendment. An argument that a broad reading is necessary to protect officers does not work. Officers are protected by applying Chimel principles to an occupant of an automobile. Belton read narrowly still allows an officer to conduct a search when an arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle in order to protect the safety of officers and safeguard any evidence that could potentially be destroyed.
In this case Mr. Gant was arrested more than 10 feet from his vehicle, handcuffed, placed into custody, and then the vehicle was searched. On top of that he was arrested for Driving with a Suspended License, something that doesn’t give rise to a probable suspicion of evidence within the vehicle.
The court ends up distinguishing Belton and setting new precedence. The court rejects a broad reading of Belton and holds that the Chimel rationale authorizes officers to search a vehicle incident to an arrest only when the arrestee is not secured and is within a reaching distance of the passenger compartment when the search begins. In addition, the court rules that with regards to automobiles, a search incident to arrest is reasonable if the officers believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found inside of the vehicle (i.e. see drug paraphernalia on the floor).
This ruling essentially prevents a floodgate of warrantless searches. Again, police may still search a vehicle incident to an arrest, but ONLY if the person arrested is within reaching distance (not detained in patrol until and not outside of vehicle in handcuffs) of the vehicles passenger compartment at the time of the search. Or in the alternative, if the officer reasonably believes the vehicle contains evidence of the offense or arrest. If neither of these are present, the officer must have a warrant or be able to prove yet another exception.
David Breston is a Texas Criminal Attorney. If you need help with a criminal accusation in Houston, Texas, call David Breston at 713 224 4040.
