The Supreme Court has cut back the Belton car search incident to arrest doctrine. Arizona v. Gant.Rodney Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license. After he was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, the police searched the passenger compartment of the car. Cocaine was found in a coat pocket insdie the car.
Justice Stevens, joined by Scalia, Souter, Thomas and Ginsburg, held that a search of a car was not permissible under Belton because the driver was not able to get into the car.
"[W]e hold that Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant's arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle. . . . we also conclude that circumstances unique to the automobile context justify a search incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle."
Here's the opinion:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf
This is a big victory for the Constitution. Let's enjoy it while we can. Time will tell how the police react to the new rule. Will they keep the driver inside the car and try to justify searching that way? Will they begin to impound vehicles and do inventory searches? Will they threaten impoundment as a way to obtain "consent" to search? Will they even follow the law? Stay tuned.
Remember: This case applies to all cases not yet final. So any car searches which were good under the broad reading of Belton which held sway until this morning are now illegal searches.
Can you give me a cite for the proposition that Gant applies to all cases not yet final. I have a client who pled guilty, but has not been sentenced. Exact fact situation as Gant. If he can withdraw his plea, does Gant apply to M/Suppress. Prosecutor says no, but if Gant's search was illegal 10 years ago, seems my clients was one year ago
ReplyDeleteGriffith v. Kentucky says new rules of criminal procedure apply to all cases not yet final. Plus, Gant says that Belton never meant what the lower courts thought it did. So, technically, Belton hasn't changed and there is nothing new to apply retroactively.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the slow response. I didn't see the comment until just now. Good luck, Dennis