New Vehicle Search and Seizure Ruling (NRR)
barjesus
872 Posts
WASHINGTON ??? The Supreme Court on Tuesday put new limits on the circumstances under which police officers who lack a search warrant can search a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.Officers who lack a warrant may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle after an occupant is arrested only if it is reasonable to believe that the person arrested could still gain access to the vehicle, or if the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the arrest, the court said.In a 5-to-4 ruling that cut across the liberal versus conservative stereotypes of the current lineup of justices, the court affirmed a ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court, which overturned the conviction and three-year prison sentence against Rodney J. Gant of Tucson on a drug charge.On Aug. 25, 1999, Mr. Gant was arrested for driving while his license was suspended. After he was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car, officers searched Mr. Gant???s car and found cocaine in the pocket of a jacket. The trial court denied Mr. Gant???s motion to suppress the drug evidence, but the Arizona high court ruled in the defendant???s favor, reasoning that the search was not necessary for the officers??? safety or to preserve evidence.Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority in the United States Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. Gant, No. 07-542, agreed, and said that the State of Arizona, which had asked the high court to overrule the Arizona tribunal, ???seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake.??????Although we have recognized that a motorist???s privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home,??? Justice Stevens wrote, ???the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection.???Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Stevens???s opinion, as might be expected, but so did Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who often differ with their more liberal colleagues.Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, as might be expected, and he was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ??? but also by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is typically placed in the court???s liberal wing.Prosecutors relied on a 1981 Supreme Court ruling, in a case from New York State, that the police may search the passenger compartment of a car without a warrant provided they do so soon after the arrest of a recent occupant.But the incident that gave rise to the 1981 ruling involved ???a single officer confronted with four unsecured arrestees??? on the New York Thruway; thus, the safety of the officer, as well as the need to preserve evidence, may have justified an immediate search without a warrant, the majority noted on Tuesday in rejecting a broad reading of the old ruling.In contrast, Mr. Gant???s car was in a driveway, where ???five officers handcuffed and secured Gant and the two other suspects in separate patrol cars before the search began,??? Justice Stevens wrote.In dissent, Justice Alito said the majority had needlessly overturned the Supreme Court???s own precedents in search-and-seizure cases, even though ???Gant has not asked us to do so.??????The court???s decision will cause the suppression of evidence gathered in many searches carried out in good-faith reliance on well-settled case law,??? Justice Alito lamented. Although the majority refused to acknowledge it as such, its decision effectively overrules the 1981 ruling, New York v. Belton, Justice Alito said.When the Arizona case was argued on Oct. 7, the remarks of Justices Scalia and Breyer signaled how they might rule. Justice Scalia said then that it was ???just silly??? for anyone to assert that Mr. Gant, handcuffed in a police car, might pose a threat, as the defendant in the Belton case may have back in 1981.Justice Breyer said last October that, while he might not agree with the 1981 decision, ???it has been the law for 27 years.??? He went on to say that ???I take very seriously, as we all do, the principle of stare decisis,??? the doctrine that precedents should not lightly be disturbed.But Justice Stevens (who turned 89 on Monday) said that ???stare decisis does not require adherence to a broad reading of Belton.??????The experience of the 28 years since Belton has shown that the generalization underpinning the broad reading of that decision is unfounded, and blind adherence to its faulty assumptions would authorize myriad unconstitutional searches,??? Justice Stevens wrote.
Comments
I thought part of allowing it was that they could still impound the car subsequent to arrest and then perform an inventory search.
I don't see a lot changing because if you are arrested than the inventory search will turn up anything hidden in the car anyway.