ARIZONA V. GANT

ARIZONA V. GANTARIZONA V. GANT

-If you are viewing this presentation -If you are viewing this presentation on a Windows PC, press F5 to beginon a Windows PC, press F5 to begin..

-If you are viewing this presentation -If you are viewing this presentation on a Mac, simultaneously press on a Mac, simultaneously press COMMAND and ENTER.COMMAND and ENTER.

--Press ENTER to continuePress ENTER to continue..

ARIZONA V. GANT ARIZONA V. GANT SELF-STUDY COURSESELF-STUDY COURSE

CPL. K. S. BUCKCPL. K. S. BUCKFULTON COUNTY MARSHAL’S FULTON COUNTY MARSHAL’S

DEPARTMENTDEPARTMENT

Press ENTER to continuePress ENTER to continue

Welcome to the Welcome to the Arizona v. Gant Arizona v. Gant

Self-Study Course.Self-Study Course.


IMPORTANT NOTICE!IMPORTANT NOTICE! The purpose of this course is to The purpose of this course is to

familiarize law enforcement officers with familiarize law enforcement officers with the U.S. Supreme Court’s (2009) decision the U.S. Supreme Court’s (2009) decision in Arizona v. Gant. It is not a substitute in Arizona v. Gant. It is not a substitute for the advice of a qualified attorney.for the advice of a qualified attorney.

If you are uncertain about how to If you are uncertain about how to apply the law in a particular situation, apply the law in a particular situation, consult with your agency’s legal counselconsult with your agency’s legal counsel..


A STORY…A STORY…


ONCE UPON A TIMEONCE UPON A TIMEIN THE WESTIN THE WEST

KNOCK AND TALKKNOCK AND TALKOn August 25, 1999, acting on an anonymous tip On August 25, 1999, acting on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue that the residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being used to sell drugs, Tucson police was being used to sell drugs, Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed knocked on the front officers Griffith and Reed knocked on the front door and asked to speak to the owner. Rodney door and asked to speak to the owner. Rodney Gant answered the door and, after identifying Gant answered the door and, after identifying himself, stated that he expected the owner to himself, stated that he expected the owner to return later.return later.



A WARRANT AND A LICENSE SUSPENSIONA WARRANT AND A LICENSE SUSPENSIONThe officers left the residence and conducted a The officers left the residence and conducted a records check, which revealed that Mr. Gant’s records check, which revealed that Mr. Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license.driving with a suspended license.



UPSTANDING CITIZENSUPSTANDING CITIZENSWhen the officers returned to the house that When the officers returned to the house that evening, they found a man near the back of the evening, they found a man near the back of the house and a woman in a car parked in front of it. house and a woman in a car parked in front of it. After a third officer arrived, they arrested the After a third officer arrived, they arrested the man for providing a false name and the woman man for providing a false name and the woman for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when Mr. Gant arrived.cars when Mr. Gant arrived.



THE RETURN OF GANTTHE RETURN OF GANT

The officers recognized his car as it entered the The officers recognized his car as it entered the driveway, and Officer Griffith confirmed that Mr. driveway, and Officer Griffith confirmed that Mr. Gant was the driver by shining a flashlight into the Gant was the driver by shining a flashlight into the car as it drove by him. Mr. Gant parked at the end car as it drove by him. Mr. Gant parked at the end of the driveway, got out of his car, and shut the of the driveway, got out of his car, and shut the door. Officer Griffith, who was about 30 feet away, door. Officer Griffith, who was about 30 feet away, called to Mr. Gant, and they approached each called to Mr. Gant, and they approached each other, meeting 10-to-12 feet from Mr. Gant’s car. other, meeting 10-to-12 feet from Mr. Gant’s car. Officer Griffith immediately arrested Mr. Gant and Officer Griffith immediately arrested Mr. Gant and handcuffed him.handcuffed him.



THE THINGS YOU FIND…THE THINGS YOU FIND…Because the other arrestees were secured in the Because the other arrestees were secured in the only patrol cars at the scene, Officer Griffith only patrol cars at the scene, Officer Griffith called for backup. When two more officers called for backup. When two more officers arrived, they locked Mr. Gant in the backseat of arrived, they locked Mr. Gant in the backseat of their vehicle. After Mr. Gant had been handcuffed their vehicle. After Mr. Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car: One of them found a gun, and searched his car: One of them found a gun, and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat.pocket of a jacket on the backseat.



MORE CHARGESMORE CHARGES

Mr. Gant was charged with two additional Mr. Gant was charged with two additional offenses—possession of a narcotic drug for sale offenses—possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia (i.e., the and possession of drug paraphernalia (i.e., the plastic bag in which the cocaine was found).plastic bag in which the cocaine was found).


BECAUSE THE LAWBECAUSE THE LAWSAYS WE CAN…SAYS WE CAN…

Mr. Gant moved to suppress the evidence seized Mr. Gant moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground that the warrantless from his car on the ground that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment.search violated the Fourth Amendment.

When asked at the suppression hearing why the When asked at the suppression hearing why the search was conducted, Officer Griffith responded: search was conducted, Officer Griffith responded: “Because the law says we can do it.”“Because the law says we can do it.”


THE QUESTION…THE QUESTION…

-Press ENTER to continue-Press ENTER to continue

THE QUESTIONTHE QUESTION

Mr. Gant was originally arrested for driving with a Mr. Gant was originally arrested for driving with a suspended license and for an outstanding warrant suspended license and for an outstanding warrant (also for driving with a suspended license). Mr. (also for driving with a suspended license). Mr. Gant was arrested outside of his car, handcuffed, Gant was arrested outside of his car, handcuffed, and locked in the backseat of a patrol car. Once and locked in the backseat of a patrol car. Once Mr. Gant was secured, the Tucson police officers Mr. Gant was secured, the Tucson police officers searched the passenger compartment of Mr. searched the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car.Gant’s car.



Officer Griffin believed that, under these Officer Griffin believed that, under these circumstances, he was authorized to search the circumstances, he was authorized to search the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car as part passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car as part of the search incident to the arrest.of the search incident to the arrest.

Was Officer Griffin correct?Was Officer Griffin correct?

If you think that Officer Griffin was correct… If you think that Officer Griffin was correct… click hereclick here ► ►

If you think that Officer Griffin was If you think that Officer Griffin was incorrect… incorrect…

click hereclick here ► ►


Sorry. You must selected an answer.Sorry. You must selected an answer. CliClick hereck here ► ► to go back so you can to go back so you can select an answer. select an answer.

A LITTLE HISTORYA LITTLE HISTORY

Before we decide whether Officer Griffin was Before we decide whether Officer Griffin was correct, a little background on searches and correct, a little background on searches and seizures, in general, and searches incident to seizures, in general, and searches incident to arrest, in particular, might be helpful.arrest, in particular, might be helpful.



THE FOURTH AMENDMENTTHE FOURTH AMENDMENT

The United States Constitution provides that:The United States Constitution provides that:

““The right of the people to be secure in The right of the people to be secure in their their persons, houses, papers, and effects, persons, houses, papers, and effects, against against unreasonable searches and seizures, unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be shall not be violated . . . .”violated . . . .”



WOLF v. COLORADOWOLF v. COLORADO

The United States Supreme Court ruled that the The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Fourth Fourteenth Amendment made the Fourth Amendment applicable to the governments of Amendment applicable to the governments of individual states and to prosecutions under state individual states and to prosecutions under state law. law.



KATZ v. UNITED STATESKATZ v. UNITED STATES

The Supreme Court declared that, based on the The Supreme Court declared that, based on the Fourth Amendment, a search without a warrant Fourth Amendment, a search without a warrant conducted by a government agent (including a conducted by a government agent (including a law enforcement officer) is unconstitutional law enforcement officer) is unconstitutional unless the search falls within the “few specifically unless the search falls within the “few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions [to established and well-delineated exceptions [to the requirement for a warrant].” the requirement for a warrant].”



WEEKS v. UNITED STATESWEEKS v. UNITED STATES

The Supreme Court acknowledged that a search The Supreme Court acknowledged that a search incident to a lawful arrest is an exception to the incident to a lawful arrest is an exception to the requirement for a warrant. requirement for a warrant.



UNITED STATES v. ROBINSONUNITED STATES v. ROBINSON

The Supreme Court concluded that the The Supreme Court concluded that the justifications for the search incident to arrest justifications for the search incident to arrest exception are officer safety and preservation of exception are officer safety and preservation of evidence. The officer safety justification rests on evidence. The officer safety justification rests on the need to disarm the arrested person. the need to disarm the arrested person. Likewise, the evidence preservation justification Likewise, the evidence preservation justification rests on the need to prevent the arrested person rests on the need to prevent the arrested person from destroying evidence of a criminal offense. from destroying evidence of a criminal offense.



CHIMEL v. CALIFORNIACHIMEL v. CALIFORNIA

The Supreme Court declared that a search The Supreme Court declared that a search incident to arrest was limited to “the person” (the incident to arrest was limited to “the person” (the body and clothing) of the arrested person and the body and clothing) of the arrested person and the area within his or her immediate control.area within his or her immediate control.



PRESTON v. UNITED STATESPRESTON v. UNITED STATESThe Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer could not search a location incident to arrest officer could not search a location incident to arrest unless the arrested person could physically utilize unless the arrested person could physically utilize weapons or escape tools or destroy evidence in the weapons or escape tools or destroy evidence in the location at the time of the search. The purpose of location at the time of the search. The purpose of searching a location incident to an arrest is to searching a location incident to an arrest is to prevent the arrested person from acquiring or prevent the arrested person from acquiring or utilizing a weapon or escape tool or destroying utilizing a weapon or escape tool or destroying evidence in that location. Once the arrested person evidence in that location. Once the arrested person is away from the location, the justification for the is away from the location, the justification for the search disappears. search disappears.



KNOWLES v. IOWAKNOWLES v. IOWAThe Supreme Court declared that a law The Supreme Court declared that a law enforcement officer may conduct a full search enforcement officer may conduct a full search incident to arrest only in a case when an actual incident to arrest only in a case when an actual custodial arrest is made. This means that a custodial arrest is made. This means that a complete search incident to arrest is not authorized complete search incident to arrest is not authorized in a case when a violator is issued a citation (or a in a case when a violator is issued a citation (or a ticket or similar notice) and released instead of ticket or similar notice) and released instead of being transported to jail. However, even in a case being transported to jail. However, even in a case when a violator is simply issued a citation, an when a violator is simply issued a citation, an officer may “frisk” the violator (in accordance with officer may “frisk” the violator (in accordance with Terry v. Ohio) and “conduct a ‘Terry patdown’ of Terry v. Ohio) and “conduct a ‘Terry patdown’ of the passenger compartment of a vehicle upon the passenger compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon . . . .” weapon . . . .”


SO, WAS OFFICERSO, WAS OFFICERGRIFFIN RIGHT? GRIFFIN RIGHT?

Again, Mr. Gant was originally arrested for driving Again, Mr. Gant was originally arrested for driving with a suspended license and for an outstanding with a suspended license and for an outstanding warrant (also for driving with a suspended warrant (also for driving with a suspended license). Mr. Gant was arrested outside of his car, license). Mr. Gant was arrested outside of his car, handcuffed, and locked in the backseat of a patrol handcuffed, and locked in the backseat of a patrol car. Once Mr. Gant was secured, police officers car. Once Mr. Gant was secured, police officers searched the passenger compartment of Mr. searched the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car.Gant’s car.


SO, WAS OFFICERSO, WAS OFFICERGRIFFIN RIGHT? GRIFFIN RIGHT?

Officer Griffin believed that he was authorized to Officer Griffin believed that he was authorized to search Mr. Gant’s car as part of the search search Mr. Gant’s car as part of the search incident to the arrest.incident to the arrest.

Was Officer Griffin correct?Was Officer Griffin correct?


THE ANSWER…THE ANSWER…


THE ANSWER THE ANSWER

No.No. In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that the search of Mr. Gant’s car was not a that the search of Mr. Gant’s car was not a legitimate search incident to arrest. Therefore, legitimate search incident to arrest. Therefore, the evidence discovered during the search was the evidence discovered during the search was inadmissible. The cocaine and the plastic bag that inadmissible. The cocaine and the plastic bag that the officers found must be suppressed.the officers found must be suppressed.


SEARCHES INCIDENTSEARCHES INCIDENTTO ARREST TO ARREST

A search incident to arrest is an exception to the A search incident to arrest is an exception to the constitutional requirement for a warrant. This constitutional requirement for a warrant. This exception is based on two separate justifications: exception is based on two separate justifications: officer safety and evidence preservation.officer safety and evidence preservation.


SEARCHES INCIDENTSEARCHES INCIDENTTO ARREST TO ARREST

The officer safety justification rests on the need of The officer safety justification rests on the need of law enforcement officers to search for and seize law enforcement officers to search for and seize weapons and escape tools in order to prevent weapons and escape tools in order to prevent arrested persons from acquiring, retaining, or arrested persons from acquiring, retaining, or using them. Likewise, the evidence preservation using them. Likewise, the evidence preservation justification rests on the need of officers to search justification rests on the need of officers to search for and seize criminal evidence to prevent its for and seize criminal evidence to prevent its destruction.destruction.


THE SEARCH INTHE SEARCH INARIZONA v. GANT ARIZONA v. GANT

The Supreme Court reasoned that neither officer The Supreme Court reasoned that neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justified the safety nor evidence preservation justified the search of the passenger compartment of Mr. search of the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car.Gant’s car.


THE SEARCH INTHE SEARCH INARIZONA v. GANT ARIZONA v. GANT

Mr. Gant was arrested 10 to 12 feet from his car. Mr. Gant was arrested 10 to 12 feet from his car. The search of the passenger compartment was The search of the passenger compartment was conducted when Mr. Gant was handcuffed and conducted when Mr. Gant was handcuffed and secured in the back of a police car. secured in the back of a police car. It was It was impossible for Mr. Gant to access weapons or impossible for Mr. Gant to access weapons or escape tools or destroy evidence in the escape tools or destroy evidence in the passenger compartment of his car at the time of passenger compartment of his car at the time of the search, because, at the time of the search, the search, because, at the time of the search, Mr. Gant was locked in the back of a police car. Mr. Gant was locked in the back of a police car. The search of the passenger compartment of Mr. The search of the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car was Gant’s car was unreasonable and, therefore, unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful.unlawful.


POP QUIZ # 1POP QUIZ # 1



Deputy Lawrence stops a pickup truck for running Deputy Lawrence stops a pickup truck for running a red light. The driver, Linda Parker is the only a red light. The driver, Linda Parker is the only occupant of the truck. Ms. Parker displays a occupant of the truck. Ms. Parker displays a driver’s license.driver’s license.

State driver’s license records indicate that Ms. State driver’s license records indicate that Ms. Parker’s license is suspended and that she has Parker’s license is suspended and that she has been served with a notice of suspension.been served with a notice of suspension.



Deputy Lawrence promptly orders Ms. Parker to Deputy Lawrence promptly orders Ms. Parker to step out of her pickup truck. Ms. Parker complies. step out of her pickup truck. Ms. Parker complies. Deputy Lawrence places Ms. Parker under arrest Deputy Lawrence places Ms. Parker under arrest for driving with a suspended license and for driving with a suspended license and handcuffs her. Deputy Lawrence searches Ms. handcuffs her. Deputy Lawrence searches Ms. Parker (including her body, clothing, and purse) Parker (including her body, clothing, and purse) incident to arrest and places her in the backseat incident to arrest and places her in the backseat of his patrol car. of his patrol car.


What should Deputy Lawrence do next?What should Deputy Lawrence do next?

(Select the best answer.)(Select the best answer.)

(A) (A) CliClick hereck here ► ► if you think Deputy Lawrence should if you think Deputy Lawrence should transport Ms. transport Ms. ParkerParker to the jail and transfer her to the custody of the jail staff. He to the jail and transfer her to the custody of the jail staff. He should should leave Ms. Parker’s pickup truckleave Ms. Parker’s pickup truck where she stopped it unless where she stopped it unless impounding the truck is necessary for traffic safety.impounding the truck is necessary for traffic safety.

(B) (B) CliClick hereck here ► ► if you think Deputy Lawrence if you think Deputy Lawrence should search the should search the passenger compartmentpassenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck for contraband of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck for contraband and other evidence of criminal activity. After the search of the and other evidence of criminal activity. After the search of the passenger compartment is completed, he should passenger compartment is completed, he should transport Ms. Parkertransport Ms. Parker to the jail and transfer her to the custody of the jail staff. He should to the jail and transfer her to the custody of the jail staff. He should leave Ms. Parker’s pickup truckleave Ms. Parker’s pickup truck where she stopped it unless where she stopped it unless impounding the truck is necessary for traffic safety.impounding the truck is necessary for traffic safety.

(C) (C) CliClick hereck here ► ► if you think Deputy Lawrence should if you think Deputy Lawrence should request a tow request a tow trucktruck to impound Ms. Parker’s pickup truck and to impound Ms. Parker’s pickup truck and inventory the inventory the contents of the pickupcontents of the pickup while waiting for the tow truck. After the while waiting for the tow truck. After the inventory is completed and the tow truck operator has removed the inventory is completed and the tow truck operator has removed the pickup, he should pickup, he should transport Ms. Parkertransport Ms. Parker to the jail and transfer her to to the jail and transfer her to the custody of the jail staff. the custody of the jail staff.

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWERPOP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER

(A)(A) GOOD ANSWER! It is a criminal offense for GOOD ANSWER! It is a criminal offense for Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after she has been notified of the suspension. Deputy she has been notified of the suspension. Deputy Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and transporting her to the jail.transporting her to the jail.



However, Deputy Lawrence is However, Deputy Lawrence is notnot authorized to authorized to conduct a conduct a search incident to arrestsearch incident to arrest of the of the passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck. Neither officer safety nor evidence truck. Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justify a search of the passenger preservation justify a search of the passenger compartment because, at the time of the arrest, compartment because, at the time of the arrest, Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup.Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup.



Ms. Parker could not have used weapons or Ms. Parker could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because she could not passenger compartment because she could not have reached them at or after the time of her have reached them at or after the time of her arrest. Under these circumstances, a search of arrest. Under these circumstances, a search of the passenger compartment of the pickup the passenger compartment of the pickup incident to the arrest would be unreasonable and, incident to the arrest would be unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful.therefore, unlawful.



Deputy Lawrence may be authorized to inventory Deputy Lawrence may be authorized to inventory the contents of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck if he the contents of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck if he impounds it. The decision to impound the pickup impounds it. The decision to impound the pickup must be in accordance with agency policy and must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. considerations or another reasonable cause.

CliClick hereck here ► ► to continue. to continue.

Please read and follow the Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER.instructions: don’t just press ENTER.



(B)(B) SORRY, WRONG ANSWER. Deputy Lawrence SORRY, WRONG ANSWER. Deputy Lawrence is is notnot authorized to conduct a authorized to conduct a search incident to search incident to arrestarrest of the passenger compartment of Ms. of the passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck. Neither officer safety nor Parker’s pickup truck. Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justify a search of the evidence preservation justify a search of the passenger compartment because, at the time of passenger compartment because, at the time of the arrest, Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup.the arrest, Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup.



Likewise, Ms. Parker would already have been Likewise, Ms. Parker would already have been handcuffed in the backseat of Deputy Lawrence’s handcuffed in the backseat of Deputy Lawrence’s patrol car at the time when the search would have patrol car at the time when the search would have been conducted. She could not have used weapons or been conducted. She could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because she could not have reached compartment because she could not have reached them at the time of her arrest or of the search. Under them at the time of her arrest or of the search. Under these circumstances, a search incident to arrest of the these circumstances, a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of the pickup would be passenger compartment of the pickup would be unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful.unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful.



However, it is a criminal offense for Ms. Parker to However, it is a criminal offense for Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after she has been drive with a suspended license after she has been notified of the suspension. Therefore, Deputy notified of the suspension. Therefore, Deputy Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and transporting her to the jail.transporting her to the jail.




CliClick hereck here ► ► to try again. to try again.


(C)(C) GOOD ANSWER! It is a criminal offense for GOOD ANSWER! It is a criminal offense for Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after she has been notified of the suspension. Deputy she has been notified of the suspension. Deputy Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and transporting her to the jail.transporting her to the jail.



However, Deputy Lawrence is However, Deputy Lawrence is notnot authorized to authorized to conduct a conduct a search incident to arrestsearch incident to arrest of the of the passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck. Neither officer safety nor evidence truck. Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justify a search of the passenger preservation justify a search of the passenger compartment because, at the time of the arrest, compartment because, at the time of the arrest, Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup.Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup.



Ms. Parker could not have used weapons or Ms. Parker could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because she could not passenger compartment because she could not have reached them at or after the time of her have reached them at or after the time of her arrest. Under these circumstances, a search of arrest. Under these circumstances, a search of the passenger compartment of the pickup the passenger compartment of the pickup incident to the arrest would be unreasonable and, incident to the arrest would be unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful.therefore, unlawful.


ANOTHER TOOL…ANOTHER TOOL…


ANOTHER TOOL:ANOTHER TOOL:REASONABLE BELIEF REASONABLE BELIEF

While the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. While the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant limited some searches of vehicles incident to Gant limited some searches of vehicles incident to arrest, it also articulated the principle that a law arrest, it also articulated the principle that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence incident to compartment of a vehicle for evidence incident to the arrest of person who is an occupant or recent the arrest of person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle when “it is ‘reasonable to occupant of the vehicle when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” might be found in the vehicle.’”



““In many cases, as when a recent occupant is In many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence. But in others, . . . the offense of relevant evidence. But in others, . . . the offense of arrest will supply a basis for searching the arrest will supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.” This applies and any containers therein.” This applies regardless of whether the arrested person could regardless of whether the arrested person could access the passenger compartment of the vehicle.access the passenger compartment of the vehicle.



For example: in a case when a person is arrested For example: in a case when a person is arrested for dealing drugs from a car, an officer may be for dealing drugs from a car, an officer may be legally authorized to search the car after the legally authorized to search the car after the arrested person is removed because it is arrested person is removed because it is reasonable to believe illegal drugs will be found in reasonable to believe illegal drugs will be found in the car. Drug dealing, by its very nature, involves the car. Drug dealing, by its very nature, involves the possession of a quantity of drugs. A drug the possession of a quantity of drugs. A drug dealer who deals from her car will tend to have a dealer who deals from her car will tend to have a supply of drugs in her car while she is dealing.supply of drugs in her car while she is dealing.



The quality and amount of evidence necessary to The quality and amount of evidence necessary to make it reasonable to believe that evidence make it reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle is less than probable cause. Rather, the vehicle is less than probable cause. Rather, the question is “whether another reasonable the question is “whether another reasonable officer, if confronted with the same facts and officer, if confronted with the same facts and circumstances, could believe that evidence of the circumstances, could believe that evidence of the arrestee’s crime might be found in the vehicle the arrestee’s crime might be found in the vehicle the arrestee recently occupied.” arrestee recently occupied.”



However, Mr. Gant was arrested for driving with a However, Mr. Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license as well as for an outstanding suspended license as well as for an outstanding warrant (for previously driving with a suspended warrant (for previously driving with a suspended license). Because of the nature of the crime of license). Because of the nature of the crime of driving with a suspended license, the Supreme driving with a suspended license, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no reason to Court concluded that there was no reason to believe that there was evidence of this crime believe that there was evidence of this crime concealed in Mr. Gant’s car. In fact, there is very concealed in Mr. Gant’s car. In fact, there is very rarely ever any physical evidence of the crime of rarely ever any physical evidence of the crime of driving with a suspended license. driving with a suspended license.



A confidential reliable informant made a A confidential reliable informant made a controlled drug buy under the direct supervision controlled drug buy under the direct supervision and observation of Detective Lock. The informant and observation of Detective Lock. The informant purchased about three grams of purchased about three grams of methamphetamine from Steven Page. Mr. Page methamphetamine from Steven Page. Mr. Page sold the methamphetamine from the driver’s seat sold the methamphetamine from the driver’s seat of a 2007 Honda Accord (with Florida license of a 2007 Honda Accord (with Florida license plate 123 ABC). The informant surrendered the plate 123 ABC). The informant surrendered the methamphetamine to Detective Lock.methamphetamine to Detective Lock.



About 30 minutes after the controlled drug buy, About 30 minutes after the controlled drug buy, Detective Lock and three uniformed police Detective Lock and three uniformed police officers (in patrol cars) make a felony stop of a officers (in patrol cars) make a felony stop of a 2007 Honda Accord (with Florida license plate 2007 Honda Accord (with Florida license plate 123 ABC). 123 ABC).



The driver of the 2007 Honda Accord (with Florida The driver of the 2007 Honda Accord (with Florida license plate 123 ABC) is ordered to exit the license plate 123 ABC) is ordered to exit the vehicle and to step backwards toward the patrol vehicle and to step backwards toward the patrol cars. The driver complies and is detained and cars. The driver complies and is detained and handcuffed by one of the uniformed officers. The handcuffed by one of the uniformed officers. The driver is the only occupant of the car.driver is the only occupant of the car.



The driver is Steven Page. Detective Lock arrests The driver is Steven Page. Detective Lock arrests Mr. Page for possession of methamphetamines Mr. Page for possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute. with intent to distribute.

One of the uniformed officers searches Mr. Page One of the uniformed officers searches Mr. Page (including his body and clothing) incident to the (including his body and clothing) incident to the arrest. The search reveals no methamphetamines arrest. The search reveals no methamphetamines or other evidence of criminal activity. or other evidence of criminal activity.



One of the uniformed officers places Mr. Page in One of the uniformed officers places Mr. Page in the backseat of his patrol car.the backseat of his patrol car.

Several closed brown paper bags are scattered Several closed brown paper bags are scattered throughout the passenger compartment of the throughout the passenger compartment of the 2007 Honda Accord and are visible from outside 2007 Honda Accord and are visible from outside of the vehicle. of the vehicle.


What should Detective Lock do next?What should Detective Lock do next?

(Select the best answer.)(Select the best answer.)

(A)(A) CliClick hereck here ► ► if you think Detective Lock should direct a if you think Detective Lock should direct a uniformed police officer to uniformed police officer to transport Mr. Page to jailtransport Mr. Page to jail and transfer him and transfer him to the custody of the jail staff. Detective Lock should to the custody of the jail staff. Detective Lock should leave Mr. Page’s leave Mr. Page’s carcar where he stopped it unless impounding the car is necessary for where he stopped it unless impounding the car is necessary for traffic safety.traffic safety.

(B)(B) CliClick hereck here ► ► if you think Detective Lock should direct a if you think Detective Lock should direct a uniformed police officer to uniformed police officer to transport Mr. Page to jailtransport Mr. Page to jail and transfer him and transfer him to the custody of the jail staff. Detective Lock should to the custody of the jail staff. Detective Lock should search the search the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s carpassenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car for methamphetamines and for methamphetamines and other evidence of the crime of possession of methamphetamines with other evidence of the crime of possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute.intent to distribute.

(C)(C) CliClick hereck here ► ► if you think Detective Lock should direct a if you think Detective Lock should direct a uniformed police officer to uniformed police officer to transport Mr. Page to jailtransport Mr. Page to jail and transfer him and transfer him to the custody of the jail staff. Detective Lock should to the custody of the jail staff. Detective Lock should request that a request that a tow trucktow truck be dispatched to impound Mr. Page’s car. Detective Lock be dispatched to impound Mr. Page’s car. Detective Lock should should inventory the contents of the carinventory the contents of the car while waiting for the tow while waiting for the tow truck. truck.


(A)(A) BAD IDEA. Try again…BAD IDEA. Try again…



(B)(B) GOOD ANSWER! Detective Lock is justified GOOD ANSWER! Detective Lock is justified in arresting Mr. Page. The uniformed police officer in arresting Mr. Page. The uniformed police officer is authorized to search Mr. Page incident to arrest is authorized to search Mr. Page incident to arrest and transport him to the jail.and transport him to the jail.



Detective Lock is authorized to conduct a Detective Lock is authorized to conduct a search search incident to arrestincident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Mr. of the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car because it is Page’s car because it is reasonable to believereasonable to believe evidence evidence relevant to the crime of arrest (possession of relevant to the crime of arrest (possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute) might be methamphetamines with intent to distribute) might be found in the passenger compartment. found in the passenger compartment. Methamphetamine (meth) dealing, by its very nature, Methamphetamine (meth) dealing, by its very nature, involves the possession of a quantity of meth. A meth involves the possession of a quantity of meth. A meth dealer who deals from his car will tend to have a supply dealer who deals from his car will tend to have a supply of meth in his car while he is dealing. The brown paper of meth in his car while he is dealing. The brown paper bags may be reasonably suspected to contain meth.bags may be reasonably suspected to contain meth.



Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justifies a search of the passenger compartment justifies a search of the passenger compartment because Mr. Page was arrested outside of his car. At because Mr. Page was arrested outside of his car. At the time when the search would have been the time when the search would have been conducted, Mr. Page would have been handcuffed and conducted, Mr. Page would have been handcuffed and secured in the backseat of a patrol car (and probably secured in the backseat of a patrol car (and probably on the way to jail). Mr. Page could not have used on the way to jail). Mr. Page could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because he could not have passenger compartment because he could not have reached them at the time of his arrest or of the reached them at the time of his arrest or of the search of the passenger compartment. search of the passenger compartment.



Therefore, Detective Lock must be prepared to Therefore, Detective Lock must be prepared to articulate why it is articulate why it is reasonable to believereasonable to believe evidence evidence of possession of methamphetamines with intent of possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute might be found in the passenger to distribute might be found in the passenger compartment.compartment.



In addition, Detective Lock is authorized to search In addition, Detective Lock is authorized to search any location in the car for methamphetamines or any location in the car for methamphetamines or other evidence of a crime if there is other evidence of a crime if there is probable probable causecause that this evidence is in the location. A that this evidence is in the location. A warrant is not required to search a portion of a warrant is not required to search a portion of a working car (or other readily mobile conveyance) working car (or other readily mobile conveyance) if there is probable cause that the particular if there is probable cause that the particular portion of the working car contains the portion of the working car contains the contraband or other evidence of criminal activity.contraband or other evidence of criminal activity.



Detective Lock may also be authorized to Detective Lock may also be authorized to inventory the contents of Mr. Page’s car if she inventory the contents of Mr. Page’s car if she impounds it. The decision to impound the car impounds it. The decision to impound the car must be in accordance with agency policy and must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. considerations or another reasonable cause.



(C)(C) GOOD ANSWER! Detective Lock is justified GOOD ANSWER! Detective Lock is justified in arresting Mr. Page. The uniformed police officer in arresting Mr. Page. The uniformed police officer is authorized to search Mr. Page incident to arrest is authorized to search Mr. Page incident to arrest and transport him to the jail.and transport him to the jail.



Detective Lock may be authorized to inventory Detective Lock may be authorized to inventory the contents of Mr. Page’s car if she impounds it. the contents of Mr. Page’s car if she impounds it. The decision to impound the car must be in The decision to impound the car must be in accordance with agency policy and based on accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. or another reasonable cause.



In addition, Detective Lock is authorized to conduct a In addition, Detective Lock is authorized to conduct a search incident to arrestsearch incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car because it is of Mr. Page’s car because it is reasonable to believereasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest (possession of evidence relevant to the crime of arrest (possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute) might be methamphetamines with intent to distribute) might be found in the passenger compartment. found in the passenger compartment. Methamphetamine (meth) dealing, by its very nature, Methamphetamine (meth) dealing, by its very nature, involves the possession of a quantity of meth. A meth involves the possession of a quantity of meth. A meth dealer who deals from his car will tend to have a supply dealer who deals from his car will tend to have a supply of meth in his car while he is dealing. The brown paper of meth in his car while he is dealing. The brown paper bags may be reasonably suspected to contain meth.bags may be reasonably suspected to contain meth.



Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justifies a search of the passenger compartment justifies a search of the passenger compartment because Mr. Page was arrested outside of his car. At because Mr. Page was arrested outside of his car. At the time when the search would have been the time when the search would have been conducted, Mr. Page would have been handcuffed and conducted, Mr. Page would have been handcuffed and secured in the backseat of a patrol car (and probably secured in the backseat of a patrol car (and probably on the way to jail). Mr. Page could not have used on the way to jail). Mr. Page could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because he could not have passenger compartment because he could not have reached them at the time of his arrest or of the reached them at the time of his arrest or of the search of the passenger compartment.search of the passenger compartment.



Therefore, Detective Lock must be prepared to Therefore, Detective Lock must be prepared to articulate why it is articulate why it is reasonable to believereasonable to believe evidence evidence of possession of methamphetamine with intent to of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute might be found in the passenger distribute might be found in the passenger compartment if she chooses to search the compartment if she chooses to search the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car incident to his arrest.incident to his arrest.



Detective Lock is also authorized to search any Detective Lock is also authorized to search any location in the car for methamphetamine or other location in the car for methamphetamine or other evidence of a crime if there is evidence of a crime if there is probable causeprobable cause that this evidence is in the location. A warrant is that this evidence is in the location. A warrant is not required to search a portion of a working car not required to search a portion of a working car (or other readily mobile conveyance) if there is (or other readily mobile conveyance) if there is probable cause that the particular portion of the probable cause that the particular portion of the working car contains the contraband or other working car contains the contraband or other evidence of criminal activity.evidence of criminal activity.


REVIEW REVIEW


REVIEW: AN OFFICER’S TOOLSREVIEW: AN OFFICER’S TOOLS

Lower courts and individuals have widely Lower courts and individuals have widely misunderstood the law as allowing a vehicle misunderstood the law as allowing a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there is no possibility that the arrestee even if there is no possibility that the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search.search.


REVIEW: AN OFFICER’S TOOLSREVIEW: AN OFFICER’S TOOLS

In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court clarified In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court clarified the law. The Supreme Court ruled that a law the law. The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer is authorized to search the enforcement officer is authorized to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person who is an occupant or the arrest of a person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle for two separate recent occupant of the vehicle for two separate causes: (1) weapon (and escape tool) detection causes: (1) weapon (and escape tool) detection and evidence preservation and evidence preservation oror (2) reasonable (2) reasonable belief that evidence may be found. belief that evidence may be found.


CAUSE ONE: CAUSE ONE: WEAPON DETECTION AND WEAPON DETECTION AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATIONEVIDENCE PRESERVATION


CAUSE ONE: CAUSE ONE: WEAPON DETECTION AND WEAPON DETECTION AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATIONEVIDENCE PRESERVATION

However, an officer However, an officer cannot searchcannot search the passenger the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person who is an occupant or recent occupant a person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle when the arrested person is of the vehicle when the arrested person is unable unable to physically access the passenger compartmentto physically access the passenger compartment unless the officer has unless the officer has another justificationanother justification..


CAUSE TWO:CAUSE TWO:REASONABLE BELIEFREASONABLE BELIEF


CAUSE TWO:CAUSE TWO:REASONABLE BELIEFREASONABLE BELIEF

In searches In searches justified by reasonable beliefjustified by reasonable belief, the , the evidence evidence must relate to a crime that was a must relate to a crime that was a ground for the arrestground for the arrest, not just any crime., not just any crime.

The The “reasonable officer” standard“reasonable officer” standard applies to applies to determinations whether it is reasonable to determinations whether it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to a crime that was a believe evidence relevant to a crime that was a ground for the arrest might be found in the ground for the arrest might be found in the vehicle.vehicle.


MOST THINGS DIDN’T CHANGEMOST THINGS DIDN’T CHANGE

Arizona v. Gant addresses searches of the Arizona v. Gant addresses searches of the passenger compartments of vehicles incident to passenger compartments of vehicles incident to the arrest of persons who are occupants or recent the arrest of persons who are occupants or recent occupants of the vehicles. However, it does not occupants of the vehicles. However, it does not affect other types of searches.affect other types of searches.



SEARCHES OF ARRESTED PERSONSSEARCHES OF ARRESTED PERSONS

A law enforcement officer has the authority to A law enforcement officer has the authority to search the body and the clothing of the arrested search the body and the clothing of the arrested person incident to the arrest. Searches of person incident to the arrest. Searches of containers on the arrested person’s body incident containers on the arrested person’s body incident to the arrest are also authorized. This search is to the arrest are also authorized. This search is justified by both officer safety and evidence justified by both officer safety and evidence preservation: “A custodial arrest supported by preservation: “A custodial arrest supported by probable cause is sufficient justification.”probable cause is sufficient justification.”



WARRANTLESS VEHICLE SEARCHESWARRANTLESS VEHICLE SEARCHES

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Carroll established that a law enforcement officer Carroll established that a law enforcement officer may search a working motor vehicle (or other may search a working motor vehicle (or other readily mobile conveyance) without a warrant if readily mobile conveyance) without a warrant if there is probable cause that it contains evidence there is probable cause that it contains evidence of a crime or contraband. Arizona v. Gant does of a crime or contraband. Arizona v. Gant does not alter this principle.not alter this principle.



PROTECTIVE SWEEPSPROTECTIVE SWEEPS

In Maryland v. Buie, the Supreme Court held that, In Maryland v. Buie, the Supreme Court held that, incident to an arrest in a private home, a law incident to an arrest in a private home, a law enforcement officer is, upon reasonable suspicion, enforcement officer is, upon reasonable suspicion, authorized to conduct a protective sweep to detect authorized to conduct a protective sweep to detect persons who may be in hiding and pose a threat to the persons who may be in hiding and pose a threat to the officer. A protective sweep is a quick inspection. The officer. A protective sweep is a quick inspection. The purpose of a protective sweep is officer safety: it is purpose of a protective sweep is officer safety: it is intended to prevent surprise attacks. Officers may, intended to prevent surprise attacks. Officers may, likewise, conduct protective sweeps of vehicles likewise, conduct protective sweeps of vehicles incident to arrest.incident to arrest.



““TERRY” FRISKS OF VEHICLESTERRY” FRISKS OF VEHICLES

The Supreme Court also held “that the search of The Supreme Court also held “that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officer in believing that the suspect is warrant’ the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.”control of weapons.”



““TERRY” FRISKS OF VEHICLESTERRY” FRISKS OF VEHICLES

Probable cause is not required to search a Probable cause is not required to search a passenger compartment for weapons. “If a passenger compartment for weapons. “If a suspect is ‘dangerous,’ he [or she] is no less suspect is ‘dangerous,’ he [or she] is no less dangerous simply because he [or she] is not dangerous simply because he [or she] is not arrested.”arrested.”



VEHICLE INVENTORIESVEHICLE INVENTORIES

A law enforcement officer who impounds a A law enforcement officer who impounds a vehicle may inventory its contents. The decision vehicle may inventory its contents. The decision to impound must be based on traffic safety or to impound must be based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause and must be in accordance with reasonable cause and must be in accordance with agency policy. Contraband and other evidence agency policy. Contraband and other evidence that is discovered during a lawful inventory may that is discovered during a lawful inventory may be seized and used in a criminal prosecution.be seized and used in a criminal prosecution.


BELTS AND SUSPENDERS BELTS AND SUSPENDERS

Whenever an officer conducts a search of a Whenever an officer conducts a search of a vehicle incident to an arrest, it is wise to be vehicle incident to an arrest, it is wise to be prepared to articulate multiple justifications for prepared to articulate multiple justifications for the search. Even if a court concludes that one the search. Even if a court concludes that one justification is insufficient, another justification for justification is insufficient, another justification for the same search may be acceptable.the same search may be acceptable.


BELTS AND SUSPENDERS BELTS AND SUSPENDERS

However, law enforcement officers must be However, law enforcement officers must be HONEST in their statements to courts. Under no HONEST in their statements to courts. Under no circumstances should officers give false circumstances should officers give false information to courts or judges to justify information to courts or judges to justify searches.searches.

ULTIMATELY, HONOR AND INTEGRITY ARE THE ULTIMATELY, HONOR AND INTEGRITY ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT MATTER!ONLY THINGS THAT MATTER!


FINAL QUIZFINAL QUIZ


FINAL QUIZ: QUESTION # 1FINAL QUIZ: QUESTION # 1

True or False:True or False: A law enforcement officer A law enforcement officer alwaysalways has the authority to search the passenger has the authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person if, at the time of the arrest, the person is a person if, at the time of the arrest, the person is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle.an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle.

(A)(A) CliClick hereck here ► ► if you think the statement is if you think the statement is truetrue..

(B)(B) CliClick hereck here ► ► if you think the statement is if you think the statement is falsefalse..

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 1FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 1

(A)(A) SORRY, WRONG ANSWER. SORRY, WRONG ANSWER.

(The statement is (The statement is falsefalse.).)

The authority to search the passenger The authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrestincident to the arrest of of a person who (at the time of the arrest) is an a person who (at the time of the arrest) is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle is occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle is not not absoluteabsolute. It depends on the circumstances.. It depends on the circumstances.



There must be a genuine There must be a genuine officer safety or officer safety or evidence preservation justificationevidence preservation justification or it must be or it must be “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” An ” An officer who searches the passenger compartment officer who searches the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person must be able to articulate the factors that justify must be able to articulate the factors that justify the search.the search.



However, an officer clearly has the authority to However, an officer clearly has the authority to search a person incident to arrest (including his search a person incident to arrest (including his or her body and clothing and containers on his or or her body and clothing and containers on his or her body and clothing). “A custodial arrest her body and clothing). “A custodial arrest supported by probable cause is sufficient supported by probable cause is sufficient justification.”justification.”



(B)(B) CORRECT! CORRECT!

(The statement is (The statement is falsefalse.) .)

The authority to search the passenger The authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrestincident to the arrest of of a person who (at the time of the arrest) is an a person who (at the time of the arrest) is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle is occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle is not not absoluteabsolute. It depends on the circumstances.. It depends on the circumstances.



There must be a genuine There must be a genuine officer safety or officer safety or evidence preservation justificationevidence preservation justification or it must be or it must be “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” An ” An officer who searches the passenger compartment officer who searches the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person must be able to articulate the factors that justify must be able to articulate the factors that justify the search.the search.



However, an officer clearly has the authority to However, an officer clearly has the authority to search a person incident to arrest (including his search a person incident to arrest (including his or her body and clothing and containers on his or or her body and clothing and containers on his or her body and clothing). “A custodial arrest her body and clothing). “A custodial arrest supported by probable cause is sufficient supported by probable cause is sufficient justification.”justification.”



True or False:True or False: A law enforcement officer A law enforcement officer may search may search the passenger compartmentthe passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence of a vehicle for evidence (incident to the arrest of a person who is an occupant (incident to the arrest of a person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle) when it is or recent occupant of the vehicle) when it is reasonable to believereasonable to believe that that evidence relevant to a evidence relevant to a crime that was a cause for the arrestcrime that was a cause for the arrest might be found might be found in the vehicle. in the vehicle.



FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 2FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 2(A) (A) CORRECT!CORRECT!

(The statement is (The statement is truetrue.).)

In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that a In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle (incident to arrest) for compartment of a vehicle (incident to arrest) for evidence when “it is ‘evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehiclevehicle.’” This principle applies to the passenger .’” This principle applies to the passenger compartment of a vehicle that is occupied or was compartment of a vehicle that is occupied or was recently occupied by a person who is arrested.recently occupied by a person who is arrested.


FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 2FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 2(B) (B) SORRY, WRONG ANSWER.SORRY, WRONG ANSWER.

(The statement is (The statement is truetrue.) .)

In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that a law In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle (incident to arrest) for compartment of a vehicle (incident to arrest) for evidence when “it is ‘evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehiclevehicle.’” This principle applies to the passenger .’” This principle applies to the passenger compartment of a vehicle that is occupied or was compartment of a vehicle that is occupied or was recently occupied by a person who is arrested.recently occupied by a person who is arrested.



True or False:True or False: If a law enforcement officer arrests a If a law enforcement officer arrests a person for a crime and, at the time of the arrest, the person for a crime and, at the time of the arrest, the person is an occupant or recent occupant of a vehicle, person is an occupant or recent occupant of a vehicle, the Supreme Court ruled that it is the Supreme Court ruled that it is alwaysalways reasonable reasonable to believe evidence relevant to a crime that was a to believe evidence relevant to a crime that was a cause for the arrest will be found in the passenger cause for the arrest will be found in the passenger compartment of the vehicle. compartment of the vehicle.




(A) (A) SORRY, WRONG ANSWER.SORRY, WRONG ANSWER.


The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence when “it is ‘a vehicle for evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehiclemight be found in the vehicle.’”.’”



However, the court also observed that “However, the court also observed that “in many in many casescases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for , as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable no reasonable basisbasis to believe the vehicle contains relevant to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.” evidence.” In other cases, an offense that was a In other cases, an offense that was a cause for the arrest “will also supply a basis for cause for the arrest “will also supply a basis for searching the passenger compartmentsearching the passenger compartment of an of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.”arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.”



(B) (B) CORRECT!CORRECT!


The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence when “it is ‘a vehicle for evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehiclemight be found in the vehicle.’”.’”



The court also observed that “The court also observed that “in many casesin many cases, as , as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be violation, there will be no reasonable basisno reasonable basis to to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.” believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.” In other cases, an offense that was a cause for In other cases, an offense that was a cause for the arrest “will also supply a basis for searching the arrest “will also supply a basis for searching the passenger compartmentthe passenger compartment of an arrestee’s of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.”vehicle and any containers therein.”


CongratulationsCongratulationson completing the on completing the

Arizona v. Gant Arizona v. Gant Self-Study Course!Self-Study Course!


The author consulted many sources while The author consulted many sources while developing this course. However, it would be a developing this course. However, it would be a gross injustice not to give particular credit to the gross injustice not to give particular credit to the memorandum memorandum The United States Supreme Court’s The United States Supreme Court’s Ruling in Arizona v. Gant: Implications for Law Ruling in Arizona v. Gant: Implications for Law Enforcement Officers Enforcement Officers by Ms. Jennifer G. Solari (of by Ms. Jennifer G. Solari (of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Legal the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Legal Division). Without this valuable resource, preparing Division). Without this valuable resource, preparing this course would have been much more difficult.this course would have been much more difficult.


Arizona v. Gant clarified the limits of the authority Arizona v. Gant clarified the limits of the authority of officers to conduct warrantless searches of of officers to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles. The decision is a major development in vehicles. The decision is a major development in search and seizure law. It is essential that law search and seizure law. It is essential that law enforcement officers be familiar with this case.enforcement officers be familiar with this case.

Thank you for your time and attention!Thank you for your time and attention!

Please direct any comments or suggestions to Please direct any comments or suggestions to [email protected]@fultoncountyga.gov..


ARIZONA V. GANT

Documents

Transcript of ARIZONA V. GANT