Arizona v. Gant: The Facts and the Holding Shortly after parking and exiting his vehicle, Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license. Accordingly, reasonable belief within the meaning of Gant is a wholly new source of search authority, distinct both from the traditional authority granted by a search incident to a lawful arrest (SITLA) and the authority granted by probable cause. At trial, Gant asked the judge to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle because the search had been conducted without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Security, Unique Arizona police went to the home of Rodney Gant in search of drugs and to arrest him for failing to appear in court. Because Gant left his vehicle voluntarily, the court explained, the search was not directly linked to the arrest and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. The Gant … Rodney Gant was apprehended by Arizona state police on an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, holding the search unconstitutional, and the Arizona Supreme Court agreed.
After the officers handcuffed Gant and placed him in their squad car, they went on to search his vehicle, discovering a handgun and a plastic bag of cocaine. Use of this phrase by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant transformed what could have been a clear and logical holding into a source of potential uncertainty. Suggested Citation: Respondent Rodney Gant answered the door and after identifying himself stated that he expected the owner to return later. In seeking certiorari, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard argued that the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling conflicted with the Court's precedent, as well as precedents set forth in various federal and state courts. HAVEN’T FOUND ESSAY YOU WANT? The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, holding the search unconstitutional, and the Arizona Supreme Court agreed. Yes, under the circumstances of this case. They arrested him, handcuffed him, and locked him in the backseat of a squad car. Rodney Gant was apprehended by Arizona state police on an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. This page was processed by aws-apollo1 in. In support of this interpretation, the article explains why treating reasonable belief as a synonym for reasonable suspicion is palpably hostile to the most fundamental principle of search law: pure evidentiary searches may only be reasonable when based on probable cause. The Supreme Court stated that exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement must be justified by concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation. Last revised: 26 Sep 2012. FOR ONLY $13.90/PAGE, Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 07, 2008 in Arizona v. Gant, Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson County, TN →, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. Arizona v. Gant presented a perfect opportunity for the Court to answer that question. The judge declined Gant's request, stating that the search was a direct result of Gant's lawful arrest and therefore an exception to the general Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. To learn more, visit our Cookies page. He argued that the majority improperly overruled its precedent in New York v. Belton which held that "when a policeman has made a lawful arrest… he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile." In seeking certiorari, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard argued that the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling conflicted with the Court's precedent, as well as precedents set forth in various federal and state courts. The officers left the residence and conducted a records check which revealed that Gant's driver's license had been suspended and there was outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with the -- on a suspended license.
Because Gant could not have accessed his car to retrieve weapons or evidence at the time of the search, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment ’s warrant requirement, as defined in Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969) , and applied to vehicle searches in New York v. I'm working on my case to battle a charge in a situation much like Arizona v. Gant. Posted: 25 Feb 2012
After the officers handcuffed Gant and placed him in their squad car, they went on to search his vehicle, discovering a handgun and a plastic bag of cocaine. Use of this phrase by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant transformed what could have been a clear and logical holding into a source of potential uncertainty. Suggested Citation: Respondent Rodney Gant answered the door and after identifying himself stated that he expected the owner to return later. In seeking certiorari, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard argued that the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling conflicted with the Court's precedent, as well as precedents set forth in various federal and state courts. HAVEN’T FOUND ESSAY YOU WANT? The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, holding the search unconstitutional, and the Arizona Supreme Court agreed. Yes, under the circumstances of this case. They arrested him, handcuffed him, and locked him in the backseat of a squad car. Rodney Gant was apprehended by Arizona state police on an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. This page was processed by aws-apollo1 in. In support of this interpretation, the article explains why treating reasonable belief as a synonym for reasonable suspicion is palpably hostile to the most fundamental principle of search law: pure evidentiary searches may only be reasonable when based on probable cause. The Supreme Court stated that exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement must be justified by concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation. Last revised: 26 Sep 2012. FOR ONLY $13.90/PAGE, Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 07, 2008 in Arizona v. Gant, Crawford v. Nashville and Davidson County, TN →, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. Arizona v. Gant presented a perfect opportunity for the Court to answer that question. The judge declined Gant's request, stating that the search was a direct result of Gant's lawful arrest and therefore an exception to the general Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. To learn more, visit our Cookies page. He argued that the majority improperly overruled its precedent in New York v. Belton which held that "when a policeman has made a lawful arrest… he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile." In seeking certiorari, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard argued that the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling conflicted with the Court's precedent, as well as precedents set forth in various federal and state courts. The officers left the residence and conducted a records check which revealed that Gant's driver's license had been suspended and there was outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with the -- on a suspended license.
Because Gant could not have accessed his car to retrieve weapons or evidence at the time of the search, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment ’s warrant requirement, as defined in Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969) , and applied to vehicle searches in New York v. I'm working on my case to battle a charge in a situation much like Arizona v. Gant. Posted: 25 Feb 2012