Arizona v. Gant: How It Effects Privacy Rights

On April 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court held that the police may search a passenger compartment of a car incident to an occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009).

Defendant Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed and locked in the back of a police cruiser while the police searched his car and found cocaine in a jacket that was lying on the backseat. The Supreme Court overruled a drug conviction of Gant, who was arrested for driving on a suspended license and affirmed the Arizona Supreme Court's decision that the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement did not justify the search in this case.

The general rule that applies to the reasonableness of a warrantless search analysis is that warrantless searches are considered unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few established exceptions. The search incident to a lawful arrest exception, high-lighted in the Gant decision, exists due to the public interest in officer safety and evidence preservation. The exception may only apply to include the arrestee's person and the area within his immediate control; put another way, only the location where the suspect can reach a weapon or destroy evidence. If there is no possibility an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, the exception does not apply.

Prior to Gant, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) was good law and continues to be applicable precedent. Chimel stood for the proposition that the arrestee's ability to lunge to an area and destroy evidence or reach a weapon can justify a search incident to arrest. Obviously, when the suspect has been moved away from the vehicle and handcuffed, the suspect's ability to reach evidence or a weapon is likely gone or at a minimum, greatly minimized.

The U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Gant is criticized by those who believe its effect will be making the job of the police for complicated. Critics claim that police will be forced to make a choice each time they are to search a vehicle: (1) law enforcement has a choice in order to legally justify a search- leave the suspect unrestrained by the vehicle resulting in a dangerous likelihood that the suspect can reach a weapon and have the ability to destroy any incriminating evidence? This option may risk the law enforcement officer's safety or result in the destruction of evidence so that the State is unable to ultimately prove a case against the defendant. (2) Or, should the officer handcuff and secure the arrestee outside of the searched area and risk violating the Fourth Amendment?

Some critics believe that due to these consequences, the Gant decision has effectively omitted the search incident to arrest vehicle exception. However, the scope of the Gant decision is limited. Pursuant to Gant, when the accused is secured, the police can only perform a legal search incident to the arrest if the officer has a reasonable belief that the vehicle contains incriminating evidence and bases the arrest on.

Other Fourth Amendment warrantless search exceptions under Florida law continue to possibly apply. These include the emergency or exigency circumstance doctrine, voluntary consent, plain view doctrine, search based on probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances, search in connection with the seizure of an automobile for the purpose of a forfeiture proceeding, a bona fide inventory search, a protective search for weapons known as a "frisk" incident to a stop with appropriate reasonable suspicion, and parole or probation searches.


------

Ryan Rooth is a St. Petersburg Florida criminal defense lawyer who can assist you with your legal needs. If you or a loved one has been arrested or has questions about criminal law, claim your FREE e-book providing help on your Florida criminal case, available at
=>http://www.roothlawgroup.com