Search and Seizure: Arizona Supreme Court Limits Vehicle Searches
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled late last month that police cannot routinely search the vehicles of people they arrest. In a 3-2 decision in State v. Gant, the court held that the warrantless search of Rodney Gant's vehicle after he was arrested, handcuffed, and sitting in the back seat of a police car went beyond an allowable search incident to arrest and was "not justifiable."
police searching accused drug traffickers' car
The legal argument centered around whether the facts in this case were consistent with a search incident to arrest. US courts have recognized searches incident to arrest as one of the few areas where the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause or a search warrant not does apply, citing officer safety and the need to preserve evidence.
The Arizona Supreme Court held that the search of Gant's vehicle after he was already under arrest and handcuffed for a traffic warrant was not a search incident to arrest. "When the justifications [for a search incident to arrest] no longer exist because the scene is secure and the arrestee is handcuffed, secured in the back of a patrol car, and under the supervision of an officer, the warrantless search of the arrestee's car cannot be justified as necessary to protect the officers at the scene or prevent the destruction of evidence," wrote Justice Rebecca Berch for the majority.
Arizona law enforcement was not happy about the ruling, and some agencies suggested they would find ways to skirt it. Police departments across the state, working with the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and the Arizona Law Enforcement Legal Advisors' Association, filed briefs urging the court to uphold the conviction and hinting they would adopt different arrest procedures -- perhaps not handcuffing suspects until after a vehicle search -- to be able to continue the practice.
Justice Berch addressed that implied threat in her opinion. "We presume that police officers will exercise proper judgment in their contacts with arrestees and will not engage in conduct which creates unnecessary risks to their safety or public safety in order to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements," she wrote.
digg
redditTo Really?
Comment posted by Anonymous on Mon, 11/05/2007 - 10:39pmThat seems to be the case. I've been involved and witness several occurrences of this. The police routinely search just about anything that they come across simply because they know the average person is unaware of this ruling. Either that or they rely on threats of towing your vehicle or impounding it if you do not cooperate. There is no justice in today's world without it being infracted upon. Check with a lawyer about whether or not you can do anything. The answer is probably "no", but you do leave with the added knowledge that if this ever happens again, sue the a$$holes!
impound vehicle inverntory
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 03/19/2008 - 3:19amVehicle was search because the law is that if the driver has a suspended license they impounded the car in the state of Arizona.
Searching the car, they found a pipe under the back seat.
Facts:
The inventory of the property inside the car, they did not list anything. There were closed bgs, breifcase, clothes shoes c's things in the glove box. wigs, woman's makeup, mans shaving equipment .
They used the inventoy of the car to allow them to search it. Found a glass pipe under the rear seat, it is a four door car and the only way was to pull out the bench seat in the rear of the car. The proplem is that the police never inventory any personal property, just the glass pipe.
search for impounding the car
Comment posted by Anonymous on Wed, 03/19/2008 - 3:34amThe traffic stop was for changing lanes, suspended license and not carrying up to date insurance card in the vehicle.
The driver of the car went to traffice court. Now the changing lanes charge were dismissed. No insurance was dsmissed.
The suspended license charge was changed to Driving without carrying a license paid a fine.
Question: If the traffic charge Changing lanes gives the right to stop the vehicle . That charge was dismissed, is that stop the legal right to impound the car? Suspended license charge was dropped to not have a driver license to show the police. and the no insurance, did have insurance and showed the court and that was dismissed.. I know at the time the computer report showed that th license was suspended, but that was wrong, the suspention was safified in 10/07. Is it the law 'FRUIT FROM THE POSISON TREE, Does that come into play?
The p/o testifed at the probable cause hearing, and the police report are not the same, nder oath the p/o lied or prejury. The audio tape is available and the police report is gotten already
GOING THROUGH IT NOW
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 11:11pmI RESIDE IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA AND I AM GONG THROUGH A SIMILAR SITUATION NOW I AM A BLACK MALE IN A SMALL MAJORITY WHITE TOWN AND I AM INTERESTED IN THE RULING OF THIS CASE AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF MY LAWYER COULD USE THIS CASE IM MY SITUATION BEING THAT I AM IN NORTH CAROLINA THANK YOU
.org
really?
Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 10/30/2007 - 10:03amI dont understand. I was pulled out of a vehicle in AZ last night, searched, then stood by as the police went through my vehicle, leaving everything tossed and discheveled. I had done nothing wrong and nothing was found. The policeman never asked if he could search the vehicle. I was not arrested although I didnt have insurance. I never knew not having proof of insurance was enough to search the car-I had done nothing criminally wrong.