U.S. Supreme Court curtails warrantless searches of vehicles incident to arrest

In a landmark 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that police may not conduct a warrantless search of a car after its occupant has been arrested unless he poses a threat to officer safety, or there is a need to seize evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made. The decision is a radical departure from the longstanding rule that police may search a vehicle after arresting its occupant.

In Arizona v. Gant, the defendant, Gant, was arrested for driving with a suspended license and having a warrant for failing to appear in court on a prior charge of driving without a license. The arrest stemmed from an anonymous tip that an address Gant was staying at was being used to sell drugs. When police knocked on the front door, Gant answered and told the police that the owner was out. Police later discovered Gant had a warrant out for his arrest and returned to the scene. When police returned, they arrested two other people who were placed in the back of police cars. They then saw Gant drive into the parking lot. Gant parked his car about 30 feet away from the officers. He then got out of the car and began walking towards the officers. Gant and the officers met about 10-12 feet from the vehicle. Gant was immediately arrested and placed in the backseat of a patrol car. In total, there were five officers and three arrested individuals. The officers then conducted a search incident to the arrest and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat of Gant’s car. As a result, Gant was also charged with possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Grant moved to suppress the evidence found in the jacket on the grounds that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court upheld the search, since the Supreme Court decided in New York v. Belton that officers may search the compartments in a vehicle after the occupant’s arrest. Gant was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. The decision was then appealed.

The Arizona Supreme Court found the search unreasonable despite Belton. That Court relied on the logic of an earlier Supreme Court case, Chimel v. California, which suggested that a search incident to an arrest is unreasonable when officer safety and preservation of evidence is no longer an issue. The court reasoned that since Gant was in the back of a police car he posed no threat to safety or evidence. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Court rejected the idea that an officer may search a vehicle under any circumstances so long as the occupant has been arrested. Instead, the Court agreed with the Arizona Supreme Court and adopted the Chimel rationale which authorizes police to search a vehicle incident to arrest only when the arrested individual is unsecured and within reaching distance of the vehicle’s passenger compartments at the time of the search. However, the Court went further to say that a search incident to arrest is also valid when it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime for which the arrest was made may be in the vehicle. Since Gant and the other arrested individuals were of no threat to officer safety or the preservation of evidence and police could not expect to find evidence of driving with a suspended license in Gant’s vehicle, the search was held to be unreasonable.

The decision fractured the Court in a way which defied ideology. The majority opinion was written by Stevens and joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Souter, and Scalia (who also wrote a concurring opinion). Alito, Breyer, Roberts, and Kennedy dissented.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for people charged with serious crimes. We have successfully represented clients facing serious federal criminal charges and state criminal charges in courts across Georgia. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia’s “Super Lawyers”, and included among Georgia’s “Legal Elite” by Georgia Trend Magazine.