The Jersey Lawyer

In a stunning new decision by the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a warrantless search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent occupant of that vehicle after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle.  However, circumstances unique to the automobile context justify a search incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.  This is a considerable divergence from the Court’s previous jurisprudence, which was widely held to authorize a search of an automobile even after a recent occupant had been secured outside of the automobile.  However, New Jersey residents should know that the New Jersey state constitution offers even greater protection against warrantless searches of automobiles, as discussed in the Jersey Lawyer’s recent article, “No Warrant? No Exigent Circumstances? No Search!“  Nevertheless, this decision will still apply in New Jersey to searches conducted by federal agents.

In Arizona v. Gant, police officers were investigating defendant Rodney Gant for suspected drug activity.  During the course of the investigation, officers discovered via a records search that Mr. Gant’s driver’s license was suspended.  Officers went to a house from which Gant was suspected to be selling drugs and saw Gant pulling into the driveway.  After Gant got out of the car, officers arrested and handcuffed Gant about 10 to 12 feet away from his car.  The arresting officer then called for backup and two additional officers showed up at the scene.  After Gant was secured in the back of a patrol car, two of the officers began searching Gant’s car.  One of the officers discovered a gun and the other a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the back seat of the car.  Gant argued that the search was illegal because he had already been secured outside of the vehicle and posed no danger to the officers and no evidence of driving without a license could be found in the vehicle.  When asked why they conducted the search, the police officer responded: “Because the law says we can do it.”

In analyzing the legality of this search, the Supreme Court first noted that the baseline rule is that all searches conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated principles.  One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest.  The Supreme Court previously held that a search incident to lawful arrest may only include the arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control – meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence (commonly referred to as the arrestee’s “grab area”). 

In applying this rule to the automobile context, the Supreme Court had previously held in New York v. Belton that when an officer lawfully arrests the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of the automobile and any containers therein.  As a result of a dissent in the Belton opinion that warned about how the new case could be misinterpreted, the Belton opinion became widely understood to allow a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there is no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search.  In Gant, the Supreme Court decided to clarify their jurisprudence related to warrantless searches of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest by holding that the constitution only authorizes a warrantless search of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.

Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court did not reach as far as the New Jersey Supreme Court has in protecting citizens’ right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, because the Supreme Court held that officers may still conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest if it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.  However, under the facts of Gant, the Supreme Court found that the search was illegal  because Gant had already been secured in a patrol car and there was no reasonable basis to believe that evidence of the crime for which he had been arrested, driving without a license, would be found in the vehicle.

The Court also noted that the State of New York had seriously undervalued citizens’ privacy interests in their vehicles.  According to the State’s construction of previous Supreme Court precedent, the State would be permitted to rummage through the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle, including all purses, handbags, briefcases, and book bags every time a citizen was caught committing a traffic offense.  This understanding would give police officers unbridled power in searching through the personal effects of citizens, which is the very power that the Fourth Amendment sought to restrict.  The Court also noted that this case does not change the Court’s jurisprudence related to the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement, which under federal law permits officers to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle whenever there is probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of criminal activity, regardless of whether any of the vehicle’s occupant’s are being arrested.  Finally, in responding to the argument that stare decisis requires adherence to the broad reading of the Belton decision, the Court stated that the Court has never relied on stare decisis to justify the continuance of an unconstitutional police practice.

Anyone who has been arrested in New Jersey should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer to determine whether any evidence seized can be suppressed.  Criminal prosecutions have serious consequences and a defendant is best served by having defense counsel on his side.