It is thus unsurprising that Members of this Court who concurred in the judgments in Belton and Thornton also concur in the decision in this case.10. 324 (2001) [])), +((!+[]+(!![])+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+[])+(+!![])+(!+[]+(!![])+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![])+(!+[]+(!![])+!![]+!![]+!![])+(!+[]-(!![]))+(!+[]+(!![])+!![]+!![])+(!+[]+(!![])-[])+(!+[]+(!![])+!![]+!![]+!![])+(!+[]+(!![])+!![]))/+((!+[]+(!![])+!![]+[])+(!+[]+(!![])+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![])+(!+[]+(!![])+!![]+!![])+(!+[]+(!![])-[])+(!+[]+(!![])+!![])+(!+[]+(!![])-[])+(!+[]+(!![])+!![]+!![]+!![])+(!+[]-(!![]))+(!+[]+(!![])+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!![]+!! Without handcuffing the arrestees,1 the officer “ ‘split them up into four separate areas of the Thruway … so they would not be in physical touching area of each other’ ” and searched the vehicle, including the pocket of a jacket on the backseat, in which he found cocaine. Although it appears that the State’s reading of Belton has been widely taught in police academies and that law enforcement officers have relied on the rule in conducting vehicle searches during the past 28 years,11 many of these searches were not justified by the reasons underlying the Chimel exception. (holding that, incident to arrest, an officer may conduct a limited protective sweep of those areas of a house in which he reasonably suspects a dangerous person may be hiding). , is misplaced. Griffith, who was about 30 feet away, called to Gant, and they approached each other, meeting 10-to-12 feet from Gant’s car.

Although we have recognized that a motorist’s privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home, see New York v. Class,

532 U. S. 318, (“[T]he mere fact that law enforcement may be made more efficient can never by itself justify disregard of the For these reasons, we are unpersuaded by the State’s arguments that a broad reading of Belton would meaningfully further law enforcement interests and justify a substantial intrusion on individuals’ privacy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d 673, 678, 541 N. E. 2d 40, 43 (1989); State v. Fesler, 68 Ore. App. It also found that no other exception to the warrant requirement applied in this case. The State argues that Belton searches are reasonable regardless of the possibility of access in a given case because that expansive rule correctly balances law enforcement interests, including the interest in a bright-line rule, with an arrestee’s limited privacy interest in his vehicle. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when Gant arrived. We agree with that conclusion. , did not justify the search in this case.