|
SCOTUS issued an opinion scaling back the Belton rule regarding vehicle searches incident to arrest. The case is Arizona
v. Gant. The case may be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf I encourage all
officers to read the case.
1. The Facts.
Officers went to a residence in Tucson,
AZ acting on a tip that drugs were being sold from the house. Officers spoke with Gant who said the owners would be
back later. The officers left and checked Gant's information. They discovered he had a suspended DL and a
warrant for DOS.
The officers returned later that day and arrested a man and woman present at the
house. They secured them in patrol cars. A car then drove up. The officers recognized the car as it drove into
the driveway and confirmed Gant was driving. Gant got out of the car and started walking up the driveway where he was
met by one of the officers. The officer immediately arrested Gant and handcuffed him. Because the other two arrestees
were in the only available patrol cars, officers called for back up. When another officer arrived, Gant was secured
in the back of that patrol car. Officers then proceeded to search Gant's car and found drugs and a gun.
Gant moved to suppress the evidence claiming the search of his vehicle incident to his arrest was illegal because he could
not have accessed the vehicle when the officers searched it because he was handcuffed in the back of a patrol car. The
trial court denied his motion. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed and the United States Supreme Court agreed with the
Arizona Supreme Court.
2. The Issue.
May officers conduct a vehicle search incident
to arrest when the suspect no longer has access to the vehicle because he has been handcuffed and placed in the back of a
patrol car and the search is not related to discovering evidence of the crime for which the suspect was arrested?
3. The Holding.
No, police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent
occupantâ•˙s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the
time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
4. Analysis.
Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless the search falls within one of the few specific exceptions
enumerated by the courts. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) stated a search incident to arrest may be justified
by either the interest in officer safety or the interest in preserving evidence. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)
extended searches incident to arrest to vehicles. When an officer arrests the occupant of a vehicle "he may, as
a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the automobile" and any containers therein.
Belton at 460. Belton involved an officer arresting four individuals but only having one set of handcuffs. He
patted each person down and told them to stand apart from each other while he searched the car. The court's holding
in Belton was based in large part on the fact the four men were not secured and could have accessed the car to obtain a weapon
or destroy evidence.
Over the years Belton has been expanded to allow a search incident to arrest even if
there is no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search. Gant specifically reigns
in such an expansive reading of Belton's holding.
Reading Chimel and Belton together, the Gant court
concluded police are authorized to "search a vehicle incident to a recent occupantâ•˙s arrest only when
the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search."
Gant at ____. The court further stated police may conduct a vehicle search incident to arrest "when it is ╲reasonable
to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle." Gant at ___ citing Thornton
v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004).
Stated another way, "police may search a vehicle incident to
a recent occupantâ•˙s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment
at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these
justifications are absent, a search of an arresteeâ•˙s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a
warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies."
Applying this test to the
facts, the court suppressed evidence obtained from Gant's car. At the time of the arrest Gant was handcuffed in
the back of a patrol car. He was under arrest for driving on suspension. "Neither the possibility of access
nor the likelihood of discovering offense-related evidence authorized the search in this case." Gant at ____.
Gant couldn't access the car, and the officers weren't looking for evidence of driving on suspension.
5. Lessons to be learned.
You may not conduct a vehicle search incident to arrest if the suspect is secured in
handcuffs in your patrol car unless it is reasonable to believe you will find evidence of the crime for which you are arresting
the suspect. For example, if you are arresting a person on possession you may search for drugs. Similarly, if
you are arresting for DUI you may search for open containers of alcohol or other impairing drugs.
The automobile
exception is still valid. If you have probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband, you may search it without
a warrant.
If you are impounding a vehicle you can still do an inventory search.
You may still search a person
when arresting him.
You may still do a Terry search if you reasonably believe a person is presently armed and dangerous.
|
