No. The search was illegal. The whole reason police are allowed to search a car after an arrest is to protect themselves from weapons or to stop the person from destroying evidence. Once Gant was handcuffed and locked in a police car, he couldn't do either of those things. The police also couldn't expect to find evidence of his crime (driving with a suspended license) inside his car. So, there was no valid reason for the search.

No. The search was definitely illegal. He thinks the old rule allowing these searches was based on a fake 'officer safety' reason. A better, simpler rule is that police can only search a car if they're looking for evidence of the exact crime they arrested the person for. Since there's no 'evidence' of driving with a suspended license to find in a car, they had no business searching it.

Yes. The search should have been allowed. For almost 30 years, the rule was simple and clear: if you arrest someone who was in a car, you can search the car. Police officers across the country were trained on this rule. The Court shouldn't suddenly change the rules and create confusion, especially when police were acting in good faith based on what they were taught the law was.

Yes. The search should be legal because of tradition. Even if the old rule wasn't perfect, it was the established law that everyone followed. It's better to stick with a clear, predictable rule than to change it now, especially since police have relied on it for so long.

No. The search of Gant's car wasn't okay because he was already handcuffed in the police car and couldn't reach his own car. Police can only search a car after arresting someone if that person can still get to the car, or if they think there might be evidence in the car about why the person was arrested.

I think police should only be able to search a car after arresting someone if they're looking for evidence of the crime the person was arrested for. Gant was arrested for driving without a license, so the police had no reason to think they'd find evidence of that in his car. So the search wasn't okay.

I think the search was okay based on a rule the Court made in an earlier case. That rule said police can search the passenger area of a car after arresting someone who was in the car. We should stick with that rule because police have been relying on it for a long time.

The Court's decision goes against the earlier rules without a good reason. The new rule is confusing and makes it harder for police to do their job safely. The old clear rule worked fine and police have counted on it for over 25 years.

No, police should only be able to search a car after arresting someone if they're looking for evidence of the crime the person was arrested for. Gant was arrested for driving without a license, so the police had no reason to think they'd find evidence of that in his car. So the search wasn't okay.

Yes, I think the search was okay based on a rule the Court made in an earlier case. That rule said police can search the passenger area of a car after arresting someone who was in the car. We should stick with that rule because police have been relying on it for a long time.

Yes, the Court's decision goes against the earlier rules without a good reason. The new rule is confusing and makes it harder for police to do their job safely. The old clear rule worked fine and police have counted on it for over 25 years.

The Court held that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest "only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest."

The "circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle."

—does not control the court's conclusion that the search of Defendant's vehicle was a lawful search incident to arrest

It is well established that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions."

When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.

Officers may lawfully search a vehicle without a warrant if "there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity

This limitation "ensures that the scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy."

—authorized a search of defendant's vehicle as incident to his arrest, and the trooper's vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment under the

Yes. A warrantless search of an arrestee's vehicle after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the vehicle's interior is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The search-incident-to-arrest exception, established in Chimel v. California, is justified by the need to protect officer safety and preserve evidence. These justifications are absent when an arrestee is secured and cannot access the area to be searched. A broad reading of New York v. Belton that would permit a vehicle search incident to every arrest of a recent occupant untethers the rule from its constitutional justifications. Therefore, a vehicle search incident to arrest is permissible only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment or when it is reasonable to believe evidence of the specific offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle. In this case, Gant was secured and could not access his car, and he was arrested for driving with a suspended license, an offense for which no evidence would be found in the vehicle.

Yes. The search was unlawful. The officer-safety rationale of New York v. Belton is a 'fanciful reliance' because securing an arrestee is a more effective means of ensuring safety. Instead of trying to apply Chimel's reaching-distance test to the vehicle context, the rule should be that a vehicle search incident to arrest is reasonable only when officers are seeking evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made. Because Gant was arrested for a crime (driving with a suspended license) that could yield no evidence inside the vehicle, the search was unreasonable. He joins the majority opinion to form a clear holding and avoid a fractured 4-to-1-to-4 decision.

No. The search was permissible under established precedent, and the Court should not have overruled New York v. Belton and Thornton v. United States. Those cases established a clear, bright-line rule that when an officer lawfully arrests an occupant of a vehicle, the officer may search the vehicle's passenger compartment. This rule provided needed guidance and has been relied upon by law enforcement for decades. The Court's departure from stare decisis is unwarranted, and its new two-part test is less clear and will create confusion for officers and courts. The majority's decision undermines the workable standard set in Belton and is based on a flawed interpretation of Chimel.

No. The search should be upheld based on the doctrine of stare decisis. While the majority's reasoning highlights that Belton's bright-line rule can produce results divorced from the rule's original Fourth Amendment justifications, the precedent is well-established and has engendered considerable reliance. The burden to overrule such a precedent has not been met. Therefore, while a better rule might exist if the question were one of first impression, the Court should adhere to the established Belton framework.

No. The search of Gant's vehicle was unreasonable because Gant was secured in the back of a patrol car and could not access the vehicle at the time of the search. Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. Additionally, circumstances unique to the automobile context justify a search when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.

I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is reasonable 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. Here, Gant was arrested for driving without a license, so no evidence of this crime could be expected to be found in the vehicle. Therefore, the search was unlawful.

I would have upheld the search under the bright-line rule established in New York v. Belton, which permits a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of an automobile incident to the lawful arrest of an occupant. Principles of stare decisis must apply, as there has been considerable reliance on the Belton rule.

The Court's decision effectively overrules Belton and Thornton v. United States without justification and introduces a new two-part rule that is confusing and provides less protection to officer safety. The Belton bright-line rule has not proved to be unworkable and law enforcement has relied on the rule for over 25 years.

No, the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not justify the search of a vehicle after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle. The search of Gant's vehicle was unreasonable because Gant was secured in the back of a patrol car and could not access the vehicle at the time of the search. Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. Additionally, circumstances unique to the automobile context justify a search when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.

No, I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is reasonable 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. Here, Gant was arrested for driving without a license, so no evidence of this crime could be expected to be found in the vehicle. Therefore, the search was unlawful.

Yes, I would have upheld the search under the bright-line rule established in New York v. Belton, which permits a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of an automobile incident to the lawful arrest of an occupant. Principles of stare decisis must apply, as there has been considerable reliance on the Belton rule.

Yes, the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement justifies the search of a vehicle even after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle. The Court's decision effectively overrules Belton and Thornton v. United States without justification and introduces a new two-part rule that is confusing and provides less protection to officer safety. The Belton bright-line rule has not proved to be unworkable and law enforcement has relied on the rule for over 25 years.

Arizona v. Gant

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot