U.S. Supreme Court Modifies Search-Incident-to-Arrest Exception to Warrant Requirement
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that searches conducted by the police without first obtaining a search warrant are unlawful unless those searches fall within certain recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One of those exceptions permits police officers to conduct warrantless searches during or immediately after a lawful arrest. (This is commonly referred to as the "search-incident-to-arrest" exception.)
In the 1981 case of New York v. Belton, the U.S. Supreme Court analyzed the search-incident-to-arrest exception in the context of a police search of a car. The High Court concluded that when a police officer lawfully arrests the occupant of a vehicle, he may--right then and there--search the passenger compartment of the vehicle as well as any containers found in the passenger compartment. The reasons why she may do so are twofold:
1. To remove any weapons contained in the car that the arrested person might try to obtain in order to hurt the officer with; and
2. To prevent the arrested person from concealing or destroying evidence (such as drugs) contained in the car.
But what if the arrested person has been handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a patrol car? He certainly cannot get back into his car and retrieve a gun or drugs. In that case, why should the police be allowed to search the passenger compartment of his car and any containers found therein? This question has been raised many times since Belton was decided almost thirty years ago, but courts have, by and large, routinely allowed the police to conduct such searches notwithstanding this very plausible argument.
However, all that changed in the very recent case of Arizona v. Gant. In that particular case, Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended driver's license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car. The police then searched his car and found some cocaine in the pocket of a jacket located on the backseat.
On appeal, Gant argued that the Belton case did not authorize the search of his car because:
1. He posed no threat to the officers after he was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a locked patrol car; and
2. He was arrested for a traffic crime for which no evidence could be found in his vehicle.
The United States Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Gant holding that the police are authorized to search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only when the arrested person is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.
However, the Court also concluded that the police are authorized to conduct such a search when it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime for which the occupant has been arrested might be found in the vehicle. For example, if a recent occupant of a car is arrested for possessing cocaine found in one of his pants' pockets, it would probably be reasonable for the police to believe that additional narcotics or narcotics-related equipment might also be found in his car. In that case, the police would probably be justified in searching the passenger compartment and any containers located inside of that compartment.
It will be interesting to see how the ruling in Gant affects the day-to-day decisions of police officers now that they no longer have the authority to automatically search someone's car when they arrest a recent occupant. Will some officers intentionally not handcuff such persons immediately upon arrest so that the officers can later argue (in court) that they were authorized to search the person's car in order to prevent that individual from grabbing a gun or destroying drugs? Are the police authorized to search a recent occupant's car if he is arrested for, say, being an illegal alien? Only time and the inevitable litigation that follows important Supreme Court opinions such as Gant will tell.
gret now drugs dealers are yet one up on us again does anyone know a loop hole?
well if that's all true i had an undercover drive past and stop in front of my car. he ran back and noticed i left an 2 open beer cans in the front cup holder asked who owned the car(ps the short ver)i told him i did he asked me to search i told him no he threatened a k9 and i laughed and told him i was just talking to him at racetrack {small town near kissimmee,fl} and that he would be able to solve my problem by proving i have nothing in the car for the k9 to hit he then pointed to a grain of dirt on the center console and said that's weed right there then he pushed me backwards to have hes partner arrest me i immediately asked what am i being arrested for with no reply he stood me by there car 20 ft away he searched the car and found a clean pipe i bought a few weeks back that i hadn't used he went to search my glove box when he found that it was locked he asked me if he could search it i told him no wait for the drug dog he had his partner take the keys out of my pocket to unlock the glove box and found canibus.
so was it legal for him to arrest me for nothing and search my car even with the drug dog on his way i believe i have a good case what do you all think i have a public defender and could use some good advise on what i should have her do for me I'm tiring to get enough info together to build a strong case without her
any help would be wonderful i will be back several times to check what you guys(or gals) have to say
thanks for reading
john
If he would have arrested you and then searched your car then yes he was being lawful. Since he did not arrest you first and then searched your car he is being unlawful. You can refer to the case Brendlin v. California. To my understanding if the officer does not formally arrest you then you are not under arrest and you can decline the offer of searching your car. They can pat you down to make sure you have no weapon or other material that you can use to harm them but they can't go further then that. Good luck and I hope this helps a bit.
ya theyre dirty around the kissimmee area.i had a guy i was incarcerated with.he was stopped for not using a turn signal.which is what the officer stated.so the guy signed his ticket and the traffic stop was over at that point by law.so the officer held the guy there against his will for another 5 minutes for a k-9 unit to get there to sniff his car and yes they found drugs butit was against the law for the cop to hold him there after the stop was over and it was all on video you can see the guy sign his ticket so it was a done deal.then you see the k-9 unit in the video going all the way down the road to make a u-turn to get over to the scene some five minutes after the guy signed his ticket.he went to court and the he presented his case that he was held against his will and the cop broke the law to catch him breaking the law.the judge said he was right but still sent him to prison.but kissimmee knew they were wrong because while he was in jail they reimbured him the $5000.00 they confiscated with the drugs with an apology letter.so he went to prison appealed his case and it was overturned immediately and he was released.but thats how it is in kissimmee that court and the police its all about revenue.it cost $1.80 a day they charge you to be in jail.