Arizona Vs Gant Case Study

Arizona v. Gant

Supreme Court of the United States 556 U.S. ____, 2009

U.S. Lexis 3120 (2009)

FACTS: Rodney Gant is arrested, handcuffed, and placed in the back seat of a patrol car for driving on a suspended license. While Gant is in the police cruiser, officers search his vehicle and find a jacket in the backseat containing cocaine in the pocket. Gant gets convicted for possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. On August 25, 1999, Tucson Police receive an anonymous tip that drug sales are taking place at a residence located at 2524 North Walnut Avenue. Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed respond to the home on North Walnut Avenue and knock on the front door and ask to speak to the

Officers then search Gant’s vehicle under the “search instant to a lawful arrest” doctrine. During the search of Gant’s car, the police find a gun and a jacket that contains cocaine in the pocket. Police charge Gant with possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. Gant files a motion to suppress the evidence found in his car because it is impossible for him to reach into his car and gain access to any weapons or evidence therein when he is handcuffed and secured in the back seat of a patrol car. Gant also states that there is no evidentiary basis for the search of his automobile because nothing in his vehicle supports the charge of driving with a suspended license. The trial court denies the motion to suppress the evidence and Gant is convicted. The Supreme Court of Arizona granted certiorari after ruling that the vehicle search was

____, 2009 U.S. Lexis 3120 (2009), used the standards outlined in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967) which states “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” The court also used Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, T.D. 1964 (1914), which states that a search incident to an arrest is among one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. The court also used Preston v. United States 376 U.S. 364, 367-368, 84 S. Ct. 881, 11 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1964). In Preston, the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not apply if the area where police officers want to search is not in any way accessible to the arrestee. The court also used New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1981), which applies to vehicle searches, the court held that when an officer lawfully arrests “the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the automobile” and any containers