U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court Narrows Belton and Limits Car Searches
Posted Apr 21, 2009 8:49 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with a criminal defendant who challenged a police search of his car that turned up cocaine and a gun.
Police searched Rodney Gant’s car after he was arrested on a warrant for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed and placed in a squad car. The state had argued the search was justified as being incident to arrest, but the Arizona Supreme Court said the rationale did not justify the search because there was no continuing threat from the suspect.
In a 5-4 ruling (PDF), the Supreme Court agreed, ruling police needed a warrant to search Gant's car since he posed no safety threat, the Associated Press reports. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, SCOTUSblog reports.
Stevens said police may not search a vehicle under the rationale of a search incident to arrest unless the arrestee can access the interior of the car, or unless police have a reasonable belief that "evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle."
Stevens cited privacy concerns in rejecting the state's argument that the search should be allowed. "A rule that gives police the power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense, when there is no basis for believing evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals," Stevens wrote.
Stevens noted the argument by dissenters that the 1981 Supreme Court ruling New York v. Belton required a contrary ruling.
"Blind adherence to Belton’s faulty assumption would authorize myriad unconstitutional searches," Stevens said. "The doctrine of stare decisis does not require us to approve routine constitutional violations."
Justice Stephen G. Breyer was among the dissenters. He said he would have advocated adopting a better rule than that advanced in Belton—if the case were before the court on first impression. Since it wasn't, he said he was bound by stare decisis.
Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority opinion, explaining in a concurrence that he would also adopt a different rule—one that allows vehicle searches incident to arrest only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred.
But Scalia said he didn't want to see a 4-1-4 outcome in the case, and he didn't want to leave the current understanding of Belton in effect, an outcome he considered "a greater evil" than Stevens' narrowing of the decision.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
Peter L. Wanger
Apr 21, 2009 10:20 AM CST
The decision is a good one, in my opinion, but as soon as the police tow the vehicle to their detention lot to get it off the road, the police will conduct an inventory search. So until the Supreme Court rules that inventory searches are searches conducted without warrants under the context of protecting and arrestee’s property, we will have the same problem. Inventory searches should also be illegal without warrants. The rules of uncompensated bailees should control police liability if the arrestee’s car is broken into while in police custody; that should be a civil matter.
Flag this comment
Walt Fricke
Apr 21, 2009 10:55 AM CST
If the police have those hunches they often have that the car is dirty, they can just impound it incident to the arrest, and do an inventory search.
If
Flag this comment
Corey Gibbs
Apr 21, 2009 11:18 AM CST
This is a perfect example of whats wrong with this country. The criminals have way too many rights in the criminal justice system. If I’m arrested for a traffic violation, I have no objections for law enforcement to search my car. WHY, because there is nothing illegal there. In this case, the criminal had a gun and drugs in the car. I for one, am grateful the Police arrested him becasue they could have prevented a homicide but once again we are taking power from law enforcement and giving it to the criminals. You people need to seriously wake up.
Flag this comment
Mackmarine
Apr 21, 2009 2:19 PM CST
Corey Gibbs says, “If I’m arrested for a traffic violation, I have no objections for law enforcement to search my car.” THAT attitude is what’s wrong with this country—people who have entirely NO CONCEPT of Constitutionally protected freedom and don’t care whether protected rights are trampled by law enforcement. You, Gibbs, need to seriously wake up.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 21, 2009 2:58 PM CST
1 & 2, those were my first thoughts as well, so I read the full opinion to see why there was not an “inevitable discovery” argument. It was because they were at a private residence where they had collared a couple of other defendants, when Gant pulled up and parked his car in the private drive at the residence. Given that it was not in public right of way, but lawfully parked on private property, I don’t think they could have justified an impound. Hence, no basis for an “inventory search” either, on the narrow facts of this case. Will police get around this by impound and inventory searches when stops are conducted on public right of way? In many cases, probably. For Mr. Gant, though, it was a lucky day.
Flag this comment
Kevin M.
Apr 21, 2009 3:06 PM CST
The police contract out their towing to a local business.
If they tow the car to the impound lot and find anything, there will be a chain of custody issue. The tow truck driver is likely a felon and would have to testify that no one touched the car while it was in transit to the lot.
Try and charge me with anything found in my car after you give a felon access to it.
Kevin
Dallas
Flag this comment
C Hohnan
Apr 21, 2009 5:21 PM CST
I could not disagree more with this decision. Before this decision police needed probable cause to search a vehicle. Probable cause can include smells, sight, or having conducted an arrest of an individual in the car. Once an individual has been arrested the next logical step is to search the vehicle to ensure that the arrested individual has not hid evidence while the officer is back at his squad car. The case also stated that officers could obtain a warrant to search a vehicle. Unless there is going to be a judge available 24 hours a day in all communities this is impractical. The next step in this progression of expanding criminal rights will be a requirement of a warrant to search an individual who has been arrested. The Supreme Court needs to take a hard look at the far ranging effects of their decisions.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 22, 2009 7:35 AM CST
With this decision, I suppose we can view the Court as “Belton suspenders.”
(Apologies to Kalifornia Arnold, for taking his line).
Flag this comment
Jackson in Florida
Apr 22, 2009 7:59 AM CST
A reply to Hohnan:
Hmmmmm. Stop a driver for running a stop light, and then search the car to be certain that the driver has not hid evidence? Evidence of what, incident to running a red light? Clearly an officer may for his protection search for weapons within reach of a driver and/or his passenger incident to the stop. In all other aspects of discovery through vehicular search how can the court ignore the expectation of privacy so important a principle in Fourth Amendment case law in deciding on the admissability of the find.
Flag this comment
Jackson in Florida
Apr 22, 2009 8:08 AM CST
A reply to Corey Gibbs:
It is incredible that you would without objection permit the search of your car, the wiretapping of your ‘phone, the search of your house, and the seizure and inspection of your mail simply because you have nothing to hide. The framers and the citizens who adopted the fourth amendment to the constitution must be spinning in their graves.
Flag this comment
P. Bryson
Apr 22, 2009 12:23 PM CST
I don’t rest secure in the knowledge that I have nothing to hide. It can be hard to predict what might be contraband. There was an article yesterday on this site about a school administrator that was nearly driven into insolvency defending himself from child pornography charges based on evidence he recovered from a student. I’m pretty sure he thought he had nothing to hide.
Flag this comment
Lazlo Toth
Apr 22, 2009 4:18 PM CST
If you’ve ever been stopped and had a search of your car requested though you committed no crime you will know how unsettling it is; in Philadelphia several officers were convicted of planting evidence in stopped vehicles and getting people wrongly convicted. As one lawyer said to me “I’d never consent to a search - I have no idea what my kids have been doing when they have my car”.
I’m glad the cop got the gun from the person he stopped, even if the conviction was thrown out. But there are reasons that the 4th amendment was implemented and they are still good today.
Flag this comment
Charlie
Apr 23, 2009 10:10 AM CST
Has anyone that posted read the opinion? sheesh. Belton’s “bright line” was pulled from Chimel (when a person, although handcuffed, has been arrested in their home, the officers may search nearby containers and closed areas for their own protection. this is to prevent the suspect reaching for a nearby weapon or perhaps destroying evidence.) This test is view objectively, so even if 30 cops were surrounding a 90 year old woman, they could do a Chimel search. Belton applied this type of search to a vehicle/passenger compartment. In Thornton, Scalia points out the strange idea of someone being handcuffed and placed 30 feet away in squad car, and the unlikely event they are going to have access to a compartment. Gant merely narrows the belton rule to when a suspect is arrested, and out of reaching distance, the police have no reason to fear for their safety and begin to search the compartments. When may a “Gant search” actually occur and be ok? in small counties or locations where only 1 officer is ordering 6 people out of a car and cannot detain all with handcuffs and keep them away from the car at once. this would likely be rare. rest assured all you people freaking out in the comments about “criminal’s rights” (get real), when a person is arrested, the police (according to most jurisdictions) may tow the car. why is this important? because once a car is impounded, the police can search it thoroughly. so take a deep breath, relax, and read some court opinions before freaking out.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.