In Arizona vs Gant, the case began when Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). The arresting officers handcuffed Gant and then placed him into a police car before searching the vehicle Gant had been operating (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). Within the vehicle, the cops found cocaine in a jacket pocket. Gant was charged with possession of narcotics (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). At trial, Rodney Gant argued that searching his car was a violation of his Fourth Amendment right (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). Initially, the judge disagreed, stating that the officers were in the right (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). It was later overturned by the State Supreme Court, who found that searches …show more content…
Officers must prove that consent was given voluntarily, and that the suspect in question was not threatened or given promises in exchange for their consent. In the event that someone gives consent to an officer, there is no requirement for probably cause (Law Officer, 2008). Giving consent, while seemingly simple, actually has several factors which must be considered. Among these, two of the most important are age and who is functionally capable of giving consent. Children are unable to give consent due to their age, and thus, depending on the state guidelines, the age of a person able to consent varies (Law Officer, 2008). When it comes to who is capable of consenting, per cognitive functioning, police officers must take into account being under the influence, psychological issues, injuries, and language barriers (Law Officer, 2008). A person may revoke their consent at any given time, thus forcing the officer to cease their search (Law Officer, 2008). Funnily enough, officers do not have to inform someone that they have the option to decline consent, as established in Schneckloth vs Bustamonte (Law Officer,