Hello. I am new to this community however wish to take part in some of your interesting discussions and learn things that can help me present better cases from the street. I am a city police officer in West Texas.

Recently I attended a training in legal survival and the instructor brought up a case that the USSC has granted cert on: Arizona VS. Gant. I don't know if anyone has heard of this case or not but it is a case that will re-visit the search incident to lawful arrest doctrine as provided by New York Vs. Belton. It is up to be heard in the fall.

The case discusses whether police officers will be able to search a vehicle after the arrestee has been secured with handcuffs, placed in the back of a patrol unit and no longer poses a threat to officers to reach for a weapon or destroy evidence.

Thanks everyone and have a great day.

I haven't read the cases you're talking about, but under your scenario wouldn't you have every right to do an inventory search of the car? Maybe I should read the case first.

I believe the Arizona case is dealing specifically with searches incident to arrest. For whatever reason, inventory searches aren't at issue there. The question is whether searching the area within reach incident to arrest is still legitimate when the suspect has been removed and can't reach anything.

This case was initally sent back to Arizona courts. For details, read this link.

[This message was edited by JB on 05-05-08 at .]

I think the "inventory" is okay if you are going to tow the car obviously however let me bring up another scenario.

Driver is wanted for a traffic warrant and arrested however the registered owner is the front seat passenger and not wanted. In theory, if we searched it, it would not be inventory because why would we tow it? It would be search incident to arrest.

Nine times out of ten, I'm doing what you said, an inventory because I usually tow all cars and if I leave it parked under a release of liability, I still inventory it to see if there is anything of high value that may need to be secured to protect the owner.

Thanks!

It looks like Arizona v. Gant is back at the Supreme Court: ScotusWiki

The issue is as follows:

Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured?

Docket Link

Surely the SCOTUS wants to maintain a bright line rule. Do the courts really want to be litigating every case to determine whether those exigent circumstances exist?

I think we'll keep search incident to arrest the way it is even with this case.

Obviously SCOTUS (as you all know) sees lesser expectation of privacy with the vehicle culminated with the 1920's case law Carroll Vs. U.S., I think we're gunna be good.