Weigh in on the Fourth Amendment

                                  SEARCH AND SEIZURE                              

As defined by the U.S. Constitution:  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,  and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall  not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported

by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Any law enforcement officer in Arizona will be the first to tell you that during an arrest they have been permitted to search the passenger compartment of vehicles and the Supreme Court has allowed it.  The Supreme Court ruling was based on the 1981 case New York v. Belton.  Police began the searches that were termed “incident to arrest.”  This decision was based and started as a protective method in case there was a hidden weapon in the vehicle.  Law enforcement officers would tell you they felt safer and believed the community was safer as well.

What precipitated this change?   On August 25, 1999, Tucson, Arizona police officers returned to a house they had visited earlier in the day where they suspected drugs were being sold. After contacting a man and woman near the house and placing them under arrest, they observed a vehicle pull into the driveway at the house.  Officers recognized the driver as Rodney Gant a subject they had contacted earlier in the day.  The subject Gant had a warrant for his arrest for driving on a suspended license and was again observed driving on a suspended license.   The officers immediately arrested Gant and

handcuffed him. He was subsequently locked in the backseat of a police vehicle. Officers searched Gant’s car, found a gun, and discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. Gant was charged with possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. 

In Court Gant moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the Motion to Suppress and Gant appealed. Eventually, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the search of Gant’s car was unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The State of Arizona appealed that decision to the United States Supreme Court.

In the years since the Belton case, many courts, had interpreted Belton to create a rule that searches of an automobile’s passenger compartment incident to arrest were reasonable regardless of whether there is a possibility of an arrest getting access to a weapon or evidence in the car. Thus, the rule widely taught was that even if an officer removes an arrest from a vehicle, places them in handcuffs and moves them back away from the car, the vehicle could still be searched incident to arrest because of the chance that the arrest would break free from the officers and get back inside the vehicle to obtain a weapon.

In Gant, the Supreme Court makes it clear that this is no longer the law. The Supreme Court has now clarified that a search incident to arrest of an automobile is authorized only when “the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search” or when it is “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” The Supreme Court notes that when the crime committed is only a traffic violation, there will be no evidence relevant to the crime of arrest and no search can be conducted.

Do you think this is a positive decision for individual rights?  Do law enforcement officers need searches “incident to arrest” for their protection? This is a very controversial issue that has been in and out of the Court system for years.  Please feel free to add your comments to this discussion.