Arizona v. Gant---- USSC decision on search incident to arrest

[rohan]

Sent this out today- Not sure how I feel about it but it definately pertains to this site. 


MEMORANDUM

To: Patrol
Re: Search Incident to Arrest
From:  LT. Ra. Howard

On April 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that significantly alters the current practice of searching the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle upon arrest of an occupant.


In Arizona v. Gant, the defendant was arrested in his driveway after walking away from his car for driving while license suspended, and on a valid misdemeanor warrant.  After Gant was handcuffed and secured in a patrol car, officers searched the passenger compartment of his car, finding a baggie containing cocaine and a handgun.

The officers in Gant were presumably relying on the long-standing rule that allowed officers to search a vehicle without  a warrant incident to the arrest of an occupant of the vehicle.

The Court's opinion in Gant changes that rule and held:

"Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.  When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies."

What does this mean for the deputy on the street?  Deputies may no longer automatically search a vehicle incident to the arrest of an occupant.

The Court emphasized that once a suspect has been arrested, handcuffed, and secured in the patrol car, a search of the car incident to a lawful arrest is not justified unless the officer articulates a reason to believe tha evidence of the crime of arrest can be located in the vehicle.

While this ruling will impact how searches of vehicles incident to arrest are conducted, deputies may still conduct a full search of a person incident to a lawful arrest.

In addition, deputies may search vehicles using any of the remaining exceptions to the warrent requirements;  i.e. probable cause, inventory, consent, exigent circumstances, etc.

Additionally, deputies will observe the new General Orders regarding this decision. (see attached)
Deputies will also see the new General Orders regarding requirement, and execution, of inventory searches incident to arrest. 

Lastly, please refer to new General Order 23.16b.2 regarding the new proceedure to apply for warrants to search a vehicle.  It refers to utilizing your email account to complete and directly request warrants while still on scene in the patrol car, and on the phone with on-duty prosecutors.

I know this alters our long standing practice, and will create new challenges, however we will adapt.  It is incumbant upon us as the highest law enforcement agency in the county to adhere to the new ruling, and as always, I expect you to lead, assist and teach our fellow departments and their officers where and when required.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me or Ssgt. Jimmerowski.

[Catman]

Been like that in MA since forever.  I don't think it makes much difference, your going to search the person and inventory the vehicle so big deal.

[dazzleman]

Been like that in MA since forever.  I don't think it makes much difference, your going to search the person and inventory the vehicle so big deal.

It's another stupid thing to have to pay attention to, or risk having another guilty-as-hell criminal released on a stupid technicality.

[JWC]

Doesn't "probable cause" encompass everything?

It sounds a lot like a job description I had to sign at a previous place of employment.  There were over twenty items listed that described my job duties.  The last one stated: "In addition the employee will perform any task or tasks that their manager deems necessary."   They could have just made that last statement the first item and not bothered with the others.

[rohan]

Doesn't "probable cause" encompass everything?

Common misunderstanding, many times we only need reasonable suspicion.
Reasonable gets defined as anything a normal or "reasonable" person would believe.

Been like that in MA since forever.  I don't think it makes much difference, your going to search the person and inventory the vehicle so big deal.

We've had search incident to arrest here since the very early 80's- it's a big deal for us because it's a complete departure from what our long standing policies and actions are but only in the sense of training and knowledge.  We;re really big on making sure our guys are up to date on stuff and making sure our policies and General Orders are also current and up to speed so they have the latest and greatest at their fingertips.  Like now- because of this we worked out an arrangment that allows our guys to email a completed warrant request form to the on-duty prosecutor from the car while he's on the phone with our guys to ask and get answered any questions. 

From there he can email it to on duty judge and back to the guy in the car- all in less than 10 minutes.  Our cars are being upfitted with printers and some- about half already have them.  For now if they don't have one in the car they have another car come over that has one and do it from there.

Another thing is we didn't have any hard and fast rule about inventory but our lawyers and risk manager told us we should make it policy to do it for every impound so that we establish an action history for future reference.

[bing_oh]

It'll probably increase the number of vehicle tows/impounds we do, simply because we can still legally inventory a vehicle when towing. It's anothe hoop the courts are making us jump through...as always, we'll adapt and keep doing our jobs.

One thing you definitely need is an established inventory policy. The courts have been pretty clear that it's legal to search a vehicle for inventory purposes as long as it's part of an established policy. It's a simple enough policy that gives an officer another vital tool.

[hounddog]

Additionally, deputies will observe the new General Orders regarding this decision. (see attached)
Deputies will also see the new General Orders regarding requirement, and execution, of inventory searches incident to arrest. 

One thing you definitely need is an established inventory policy. The courts have been pretty clear that it's legal to search a vehicle for inventory purposes as long as it's part of an established policy. It's a simple enough policy that gives an officer another vital tool.

You are obviously a trained observer.


 

[MaxPower]

Rohan - thanks for posting your memo.  It's really interesting to see how these changes are implemented in LE agencies.

Regarding the decision, I think that the court thought LEOs had strayed too far from the initial rationale for the NY v. Belton ruling, which allowed search incidents to include the entire passenger compartment of a car.  That was allowed in Belton because the officer there had four unsecured suspects outside the car he had to search and the court concluded that because the suspects were unrestrained the entire passenger compartment was in their grab area.  When you have the suspect handcuffed and put in a cruiser the reasoning breaks down - the suspect obviously can't access the passenger compartment of the car, so how can it still be in his grab area.

[hounddog]

Randy, I was wondering how this has been affecting your patrols so far? I was going to ask you next time I talked to you but thought it was a good question for this thread.   Encounter any problems yet?