United States Supreme Court Renders a Major Decision on Vehicle Searches
By: Kenneth Steckler
On April 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court revamped the law regarding searches of vehicles incident to the arrest of an occupant. All of law enforcement and prosecutors should familiarize themselves with the ruling of this case, as it is unquestionably a landmark case in the area of criminal law.
Facts of the Case
.jpg)
The Tucson Police Department acted on a tip that narcotics activity was taking place at a residence. The police conducted a records check of one of the residents, Rodney Gant, and learned that Gant had an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. Gant drove up to the residence while the police were there.
As he stepped out of his vehicle, an officer shined a flashlight on the car, called to him, and Gant walked toward the officer. Gant was about 8 to 10 feet from his car when the officer placed him under arrest, handcuffed him, and placed him into the back of a nearby patrol car. After his arrest, officers searched Gant’s vehicle and found cocaine in the pocket of a jacket in the car and a weapon.
Gant was charged with unlawful possession of cocaine for sale and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. He filed a motion to suppress, which the court denied on the ground that the search of his car was lawful because it was a search incident to his arrest, pursuant to the United States Court decision of New York v. Belton (In Belton, the Supreme Court held that the risks to officer safety and to the preservation of evidence inherent in the arrest of a vehicle’s recent occupant justified a contemporaneous warrantless search of the automobile’s passenger compartment incident to the arrest.) Gant was convicted of the charges, and he was incarcerated for 3 years.
The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, and ruled that the defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. The court further ruled that Belton is distinguishable because Gant stopped his vehicle and voluntarily exited his vehicle. By contrast, in Belton, the police confronted the suspect while he still was in his car. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the post-arrest search of his car violated the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, held the search to be illegal.
The United States Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Court ruled that warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable,” subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.
The Court further ruled that officers may search a vehicle incident to arrest only if (1)the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment when the search is conducted; or (2) it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.
What the Ruling Means for Law Enforcement?
In essence, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling authorized a search of a vehicle incident to an arrest under only two circumstances.
First, the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment when the search is conducted. The Court stated that it will be a rare case in which an officer is unable to fully effectuate an arrest so that an arrestee has a realistic possibility of access to the vehicle. Thus, the normal case in which an officer secures the arrestee with handcuffs and places him/her in a police vehicle will not satisfied this particular circumstance.
Second, it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle. For motor vehicle offenses, such as Operating While Intoxicated, there may be valid grounds for believing that there is relevant evidence to the offense that may exist in the vehicle (i.e., controlled substances or alcohol containers used to drink or otherwise orally ingest them). How recent the offense was committed will be important in determining the “reasonable to believe” standard.
If neither circumstance exists to allow a search of the vehicle, there are other Fourth Amendment exceptions that may authorize a warrantless search of the vehicle.
These exceptions are as follows:
1. reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle;
2. impoundment and inventory of a vehicle, which must be conducted under standardoperating procedures that are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; and,
3. consent to search.
Law enforcement must keep this new standard in mind. The Belton rule has been curtailed and a number of searches that previously would have been held to be legal would now likely be found to be unconstitutional.
Editor’s Note: Consult your prosecutor before adopting practices suggested by reports in this article. The court decisions in this article are designed to keep you informed of trends in the law. Discuss your practices that relate to these types of cases with your commanding officers, police legal advisors, and the prosecuting attorney before changing your practices in reliance on a reported court decision.
