IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT ARIZONA v. GANT, rendered 4.21.09, by the U. S. Supreme Court

Arizona v. Gant will reverse much of the utility and simplicity law enforcement has enjoyed [in most states, for almost three decades; in Louisiana, for the last two years], relative to the doctrine of Search Incident to Arrest [SITA] of vehicles.  This case is a negative development for law enforcement. It is a sea change as to what police officers can and can't do.  It is as bad for police, in its own way, as Terry v. Ohio (for example) was good for police.

          The bottom line today is that, as a contemporaneous incident of an arrest, law officers may now search the passenger compartment of the vehicle, including containers, only in two situations, absent another justification (*See below) to get inside the vehicle:

          1.  When an unshackled arrestee is still within realistic grabbing distance of the passenger compartment, such that he could feasibly take possession of a weapon with which to hurt the officer, or evidence to conceal; or

          2.  When the officer has reasonable belief [something less than probable cause, more than likely similar to reasonable suspicion] that the vehicle's passenger compartment contains evidence of the crime of arrest. Period.

*Other exceptions, not affected by AZ v. Gant:

•     PC, per Carroll v. U.S. and U.S. v. Ross (entire car);

•     Frisk of passenger compartment, per MI v. Long;

•     Inventory of the vehicle, per S.D. v. Opperman and Florida v. Wells;

•     Consent per many cases, including Ohio v. Robinette and Florida v. Jimeno.

If you think this explanation might assist someone in understanding AZ v. Gant, feel free to forward it around.

Jean and Harmon Drew

1002 Broadway Street

Minden, LA 71055-3313

Phone: 318.377.6289    FAX:318.377.3685  

Criminal Law Books/Teaching:   www.drewlawbooks.com