Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2009

Arizona v. Gant

556 U.S. 332 | 129 S. Ct. 1710 | 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 | 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case limits vehicle searches incident to arrest: police may search only when the arrestee can still reach the passenger compartment or when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

Background

Tucson police went to a house after receiving an anonymous tip that drugs were being sold there. When Rodney Gant answered the door, officers learned through a records check that his driver’s license was suspended and that he had an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license.

Later that day, officers returned to the house and arrested two other people, securing each in a patrol car. When Gant drove into the driveway, an officer confirmed that he was driving, arrested him after he exited and shut the car door, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back of a patrol car. Several officers were present. Officers then searched Gant’s vehicle and found a gun and cocaine in a jacket pocket on the backseat.

Gant was convicted of drug offenses after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, holding that the search could not be justified as incident to arrest because Gant was handcuffed, secured in a patrol car, and unable to reach the vehicle. The United States Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether police may search a recent vehicle occupant’s passenger compartment incident to arrest when the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the vehicle.

Holding

No. A vehicle search incident to arrest is permitted on the officer-safety and evidence-preservation rationale only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment when the search occurs.

Reasoning

The Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant. The search-incident-to-arrest exception is a limited exception grounded in two practical concerns identified in Chimel v. California: protecting officers from weapons an arrestee might obtain and preventing the concealment or destruction of evidence the arrestee might reach.

Chimel therefore limits a search incident to arrest to the arrestee’s person and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control—the area from which the arrestee might gain a weapon or destructible evidence. If the arrestee cannot possibly reach the area searched, neither Chimel justification supports dispensing with a warrant.

New York v. Belton did not create a free-standing entitlement to search every vehicle associated with an arrest. Belton supplied a practical rule about the scope of a permissible vehicle search when the passenger compartment is within the arrestee’s reaching distance: officers may search that compartment and containers within it. Reading Belton to authorize every search of a recent occupant’s vehicle, even after the arrestee is secured, would detach the rule from Chimel’s underlying purposes.

Gant was handcuffed and locked in a patrol car before officers searched his vehicle. Five officers outnumbered the three arrestees, all of whom were secured in separate patrol cars. Gant therefore had no realistic ability to enter the vehicle, retrieve a weapon, or destroy evidence, so the officer-safety and evidence-preservation rationale did not justify the search.

Issue #2

Whether police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

Holding

Yes. Police may search the passenger compartment incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the offense for which the person was arrested.

Reasoning

The automobile context provides an additional basis for a limited evidentiary search incident to arrest. As Justice Scalia had proposed in Thornton v. United States, a search is reasonable when officers have reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the crime of arrest.

This evidentiary rule does not authorize a vehicle search after every arrest. For some offenses, especially ordinary traffic violations, there is ordinarily no reason to think relevant evidence will be in the vehicle. But an arrest for a drug offense, as in Belton and Thornton, can reasonably support a search for drug-related evidence in the passenger compartment.

Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license. That offense did not supply a reasonable basis to believe his car contained evidence of the offense. Because Gant could not access the car and the offense of arrest did not justify an evidentiary search, the search was unreasonable.

Issue #3

Whether the Fourth Amendment or stare decisis required retaining the broad interpretation of Belton that allowed a search incident to every recent occupant’s arrest.

Holding

No. The Court rejected the broad reading of Belton and held that stare decisis did not require preserving a rule that produced searches unsupported by the justifications for the exception.

Reasoning

A broad rule allowing police to search the passenger compartment and every container within it whenever they arrest a recent vehicle occupant would substantially invade privacy. It would permit exploratory searches of purses, briefcases, jackets, and other private effects even when an arrest for a minor traffic offense gave officers no safety or evidentiary reason to search.

The State’s proposed rule was not as clear or administrable as claimed. Courts applying the broad version of Belton had disagreed about how close in time and place an arrest must be to the vehicle and whether a search could begin or continue after the arrestee left the scene.

The narrower rule does not leave officers without tools to address genuine danger or evidence concerns. Michigan v. Long permits a protective vehicle search when officers reasonably suspect a dangerous person may gain immediate control of weapons, and the automobile exception permits a broader search when officers have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity.

Although officers had relied on the broad understanding of Belton for many years, reliance on a practice that routinely authorizes unjustified searches could not outweigh the public’s interest in protection of Fourth Amendment rights. The Court concluded that stare decisis does not require adherence to a precedent insofar as it would sanction recurring constitutional violations.

Concurrences

Justice Scalia

Reasoning

Justice Scalia agreed that the search was unconstitutional, but he did not accept the majority’s retained reaching-distance rule as a satisfactory long-term framework. In his view, history did not clearly establish the scope of vehicle searches incident to arrest, so the question should be resolved under ordinary standards of reasonableness.

He argued that officer safety cannot justify an automatic search of a vehicle after a roadside arrest. Officers normally protect themselves more effectively by removing the person from the vehicle, frisking, handcuffing, and securing the person in a patrol car. Arizona had identified no example of a secured arrestee escaping to retrieve a weapon from the arrestee’s own vehicle.

Justice Scalia would have overruled the Belton-Thornton safety rationale altogether. He would permit a vehicle search incident to arrest only when the search seeks evidence of the offense of arrest, or evidence of another crime for which police have probable cause.

He regarded the majority’s test—allowing a search if the arrestee remains within reaching distance—as manipulable and insufficiently clear because officers could leave a scene unsecured in order to create a basis to search. Still, he joined the Court’s opinion because he considered the majority’s narrowing rule less harmful than leaving in place the broad rule that authorized plainly unconstitutional searches.

Dissents

Justice Breyer

Reasoning

Justice Breyer agreed with Justice Alito that Belton had established a bright-line rule allowing a warrantless search of a vehicle’s passenger compartment incident to the lawful arrest of an occupant, regardless of whether the individual actually posed a present danger of reaching the vehicle.

He also agreed with the majority that Belton could produce outcomes disconnected from Chimel’s safety and evidence-preservation justifications. If the matter were one of first impression, he would seek a better rule.

But he concluded that the matter was controlled by stare decisis. Belton had been followed for decades by this Court and lower courts, and law enforcement had relied on it. In his view, the reasons offered for changing that settled precedent were not strong enough, so he joined Justice Alito’s dissent except for Part II-E.

Justice Alito

Reasoning

Justice Alito maintained that the Court effectively overruled both Belton and Thornton while declining to say so. Belton expressly held that an officer making a lawful custodial arrest of a vehicle occupant may contemporaneously search the passenger compartment, and Thornton extended that rule to recent occupants. Under that established rule, the search of Gant’s car was valid.

He argued that Belton deliberately adopted a categorical rule because a case-by-case inquiry into whether a particular arrestee could reach a particular part of a car was difficult for police and courts to administer. The majority’s first prong restores precisely that uncertain, fact-specific inquiry, while its evidence-of-the-offense prong creates new uncertainties about what “reason to believe” means and why it is less demanding than probable cause.

In Justice Alito’s view, Chimel’s immediate-control area should be measured at the time of arrest, not at the later time officers conduct the search. Otherwise, officers who sensibly handcuff and secure an arrestee before searching would lose authority that they would have possessed had they searched first, creating a perverse incentive to delay securing the arrestee.

He emphasized that police had been trained and had acted in reliance on Belton for twenty-eight years. The broad rule was workable, had been reaffirmed in Thornton only five years earlier, and had not been undermined by changed circumstances or later precedent. Those factors, he argued, required adherence to stare decisis and reversal of the Arizona Supreme Court.