Arizona vs Grant Case

On August 25, 1999, acting on an anon. tip that the compliance at 2524 northwesterly Walnut Avenue was being use to sell medicates Tucson practice of honor military police police officeholders Griffith and Reed knocked on the front door and asked to speak to the owner. Gant answered the door and, after identifying himself stated that he evaluate the owner to return later. The incumbents left the residence and stick outed a records check, which revealed that Gants drivers license had been suspended and on that point was an prominent sanction for his break for driving with a suspended license.When the officers returned to the house that evening they arrange a man near the tush of the house and a woman in a political machine parked in front of it. After a terzetto officer arrived they drive outed the man for providing a mistaken name and the woman for possessing drug paraphernalia. twain touchees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when Gant arr ived. The officers recognised his car as it entered the driveway and incumbent Griffith confirmed that Gant was the driver by sheeny a flashlight into the car as it drove by him. Gant parked at the end of the driveway got out of his car and shut the door.Griffith who was about 30 feet apart called to Gant, and they approached each different meeting 10 to 12 feet from Gants car. Griffith immediately smashed Gant and handcuffed him. Be get along the separate arrestees were secured in the single patrol cars at the scene Griffith called for tail endup. When two more officers arrived they locked Gant in the backseat of their fomite. After Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car two officers seeed his car unmatched of them form a gun and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the liberation of a jacket on the backseat.Gant was aerated with two offenses possession of a hypnagogic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia the plastic bag in which the cocaine was found He locomote to suppress the curtilage seized from his car on the ground that the indorsementless look violated the fourth Amendment Among other things Gant argued that Belton did not authorize the chase of his fomite be coiffure he posed no threat to the officers after he was handcuffed in the patrol car and because he was arrested for a vocation offense for which no designate could be found in his vehicle.I think that to better prepare for such(prenominal) an inquiry officers should focus on articulating the modestness of all such face base on the following facts and muckle (1) outmatch The distance between the arrestee and the place to be lookuped. 2) Restraints Whether the arrestee was handcuffed or otherwise restrained what motley of Restraints were utilise and whether the arrestee was handcuffed in the front or back (3) Display of guns or other arms by officers Whether the natural law had weapons drawn or pointed at the arrestee o r other suspects (4) aligning Whether the jurisprudence were positioned so as to thrust the arrestee suspects and bystanders from the orbital cavity to be searched. (5) Access The alleviate of addition to the field of view or container itself to hold whether a container is open or unlikeable locked or unlocked. 6) Numbers The number of officers empower versus the number of arrestees, suspects, or bystanders. (7) Arrestees fetch Attempts made by the suspect beforehand during, or after the arrest to access the field of force to be searched. (8) Reasonable diverseness in circumstances Do police consider to move the arrestee away from a dangerous environment into some other snobbish area or can police enunciate a legitimate demand to retrieve something such as the arrestees shoes or clothing?Searches of a fomite Following Arrest of an occupant or Recent Occupant ii Potential Justifications Arrestee could access the vehicle Gant held that police faculty search a veh icle incident to arrest when the arrestee an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle is unfastened and within reaching distance of the rider compartment at the time of the search. The Court noted, It leave alone be the ancient fact in which an officer is unable to fully lay out an arrest so that a historical misadventure of access to the arrestees vehicle covers. In such a rare case tho an SIA of the passenger compartment would be apparent chthonic the one-fourth Amendment.Since Chimel justifies this search officers may search for weapons both differentiate of any disgust and means of escape. evil related certify superpower be in the vehicle. Even if the arrestee can no longer access the vehicles passenger compartment the Court held that an SIA ordain besides be permitted when it is fairish to intrust deduction applicable to the evil of arrest might be found in the vehicle. In many cases, such as arrests for traffic violations or outstanding arrest warrants there will be no just dry land to believe that the vehicle contains relevant secern of the offensive.In other cases however such as arrests for possession of controlled substances the basis of the arrest will supply an un expulsionable rationale for searching the arrestees passenger compartment and any containers inside. In a case where the search is justified by the possibility of locating offense related demo in the vehicle officers are extra to searching only those places in the passenger compartment where the offense related testify might be located. How to define the reasonable to believe monetary standard? Is it the same as presumable cause or is it something less?One must compare the search incident to arrest exception in Gant to some other(prenominal) firmly complete search warrant exception to find the most believably answer. In U. S. v. Carroll the absolute Court constituted the mobile conveyance exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant re quirement. under this exception an officer may search a readily mobile conveyance without a warrant upon probable cause that it contains evidence or contraband. Once this standard is met the officer may search any area of the vehicle to include the trunk compartment if that area may contain the objects of the search.The rule in a Gant search incident to arrest however first requires a straight custodial arrest of an occupant or recent occupant of a vehicle. A search of the passenger compartment incident to arrest is so justified by a reasonable persuasion that evidence of the crime of arrest might be in the car. If Gants reasonable to believe standard is equal to probable cause then the Court has created an M. C. Escher-like puzzle. An officer who has made a custodial arrest and has a reasonable belief equated to probable cause that evidence of the crime of arrest might be in the car could search only the passenger compartment.An officer who has made no arrest but has probable ca use to believe that evidence of any crime is in the car could search the holy vehicle. In other words the officer who meets the higher standard custodial arrest probable cause for peculiar(prenominal) evidence gets to search less but the officer who meets the lesser standard probable cause for any evidence can search more. At best the Court would use up created a new search warrant exception that is instantly swallowed by another that has existed for almost 85 years. The better explanation is that reasonable means. easonable. There is no need to equate reasonable to believe to a percentage or particular direct of probability in fact the Supreme Court has stated the test of breeding under the Fourth Amendment is not sure-footed of precise definition or robotic application. Rather as in bug outs regarding an officers use of force the priggish application of the reasonableness standard requires sure attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case and must b e judged from the purview of a reasonable officer on the scene.The ultimate question should be whether another reasonable officer if confronted with the same facts and circumstances could believe that evidence of the arrestees crime might be found in the vehicle the arrestee recently occupied. Facts and circumstances spark advance to such a reasonable belief will include information about the offense and the offender the age of the information the nature of the crime at issue the behavior of the arrestee before during and after the arrest ownership and control of the vehicle and results of questioning arrestees and occupants.The Court did not expound upon why it believed vehicles to be special in this consideration but Justice Scalias unity in Thornton from which the language was taken reminds us that motor vehicles are a year of effects which trust rise to a reduced expectation of privacy and heightened law enforcement needs. Therefore it appears as though officers may not ju stify a search of an arrestees non vehicular lunging area found upon a reasonable belief that evidence of his crime might be found therein.Rather they will have to articulate reason to believe that the arrestee could access the area at the time of the search. Other Vehicle Search Exceptions Remain Available If an officer cannot justify a search of a vehicle incident to arrest under Gant or is uncertain whether an SIA is warranted other established exceptions to the search warrant requirement remain available to safeguard evidence and cheer the safety of officers. 1) If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a passenger or recent occupant of a vehicle whether arrested or not is dangerous and may gain access to a weapon he may frisk the passenger compartment for weapons This exception is known as a Terry frisk of the vehicle. (2) If the officer has probable cause that the vehicle contains evidence of malefactor activity the officer may conduct a thorough search of any area of t he vehicle in which the evidence might be found.This exception is the aforementioned(prenominal) mobile conveyance exception or the Carroll Doctrine. (3) If an officer conducting an arrest reasonably suspects that a dangerous psyche is hiding in a nearby vehicle he may conduct a contraceptive sweep of the vehicle by feeling in places where such a person might be concealed. (4) Consent will always allow an officer to search as long as it is disposed(p) voluntarily by one with existent or apparent authority to give it and the officer stays within the boundaries of the try for given. 5) Although not permitted for use as a criminal search tool an officer who effects a lawful arrogate of a vehicle may inventorying its contents in accordance with regularise agency policy. If the inventory is performed lawfully any evidence or contraband de frontierine during the process may be seized and used as evidence in a criminal prosecution and may turn in justification for another warra nt exception. References faithfulness professor Tomkovicz writes brief for case in upcoming Supreme Court term. The Press-Citizen. 2008-09-29. http//www. google. com http//en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Arizona_v. _Gant