|
More on Arizona vs. Gant:
Exclusionary Rule ~ 2011 US v. Davis (Supreme Court) Jack Ryan 6-17-2011
Effect of AZ v. Gant on Past Searches Incident to Arrest (11th Cir. U.S. v. Davis): Brian Batterton, 5-11-2010
Final Case Judgement and What it Means to Law Enforcement: Jack Ryan, 4-21-2009
Inventory Searches of Motor Vehicles: Jack Ryan, 4-30-2009
In Light of Gant, What Exactly Can We Do? Brian Batterton, 6-4-2009
-
In Arizona v. Gaunt decided by the United States Supreme Court this week, there is a sentence in the majority opinion which is creating a misconception by the media as well as numerous law enforcement web-sites and commentators reporting on the case.
The quote creating the issue asserts: “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.”
This has led to numerous commentators, some of whom are relied upon by law enforcement agencies to state: “The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.” [policeone.com]
News outlets, due to their lack of knowledge with respect to Fourth Amendment issues have missed the boat as well in reporting: “WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has ruled that police need a warrant to search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.” [Associated Press].
What all of these commentators have failed to recognize is that the case is addressing the search of motor vehicles incident to arrest and not any of the other exceptions related to searches of vehicles. In fact, the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens takes pains to recognize: “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.” It should be noted that this is the same quote that created the problem.
When one examines this quote it indicates that police will not be able to search the car incident to arrest unless they get a warrant. Any law enforcement officer knows that to get a warrant to search an officer must first have probable cause.
If an officer has the probable cause necessary to obtain a warrant for a motor vehicle then he does not need to obtain the warrant because another exception applies. The motor vehicle exception [Carroll Doctrine] applies. Thus, the quote from the case must be read in light of the other exceptions which were specifically left intact by the decision.
The only exception impacted by this case was incident to arrest searches. If the officer meets the criteria necessary to obtain a warrant, the officer is automatically entitled to search the vehicle without a warrant under the motor vehicle exception which was in no way impacted by this case.
|
