Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Rights Inside Vehicles
In a come-from-behind, but dubious victory for the Fourth Amendment, Justices Stevens and Scalia teamed up to deliver a surprise concurrence in the recent case of Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 (2009). After thoroughly reviewing the Court’s previous holdings in N.Y. v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981); Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004); and Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), commentators were shocked to learn there is actually something on which the liberal and conservative wings of the Court agree:
Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Continued ....
Gant’s license had been previously suspended and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license. Gant pulled up in the driveway of a house suspected of being a hot spot for drug trafficking, got out of his car on foot, and approached the officers. At that point, he was arrested and handcuffed immediately.
Gant was locked in the backseat of a patrol car, handcuffed, when his own vehicle was searched. A gun was found in the interior of his car, along with a bag of cocaine in the pocket of the jacket on the backseat. Gant argued that Belton did not authorize the search of his vehicle because he posed no threat to the officers while he was handcuffed in the patrol car. Additionally, he was arrested for a traffic offense (driving with a revoked license), not for trafficking drugs.
Gant was eventually charged with two offenses - possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia (the plastic bag in which the cocaine was found). When asked why the search was conducted, Officer Griffith responded: “Because the law says we can do it.” Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1715. Justice Scalia, after proverbially clearing his throat, was forced to step in and lay down the law:
“It seems to me unacceptable for the Court to come forth with a 4-to-1-to-4 opinion that leaves the governing rule uncertain. I am therefore confronted with the choice of either leaving the current understanding of Belton and Thornton in effect, or acceding to what seems to me the artificial narrowing of those cases adopted by JUSTICE STEVENS. The latter, as I have said, does not provide the degree of certainty I think desirable in this field; but the former opens the field to what I think are plainly unconstitutional searches -- which is the greater evil. I therefore join the opinion of the Court.” Id. at 1725.
In further clarifying the rule, civil rights attorneys hailed the decision as a true victory for the Constitution. Unclear is how this new vehicle rule clarification might apply to travel by less conventional methods, such as bikes, trains, or even horseback.
-Derek Garcia reporting for the Kennedy Law Firm
