On April 21st the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Arizona v. Gant and in doing so sustained the holding of the Arizona Supreme Court. In this case the defendant after being stopped and arrested for driving with a suspended license was handcuffed and placed in the rear of a police vehicle. The police proceeded to search his vehicle and recovered cocaine in a jacket pocket. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Arizona court that Gant was not within a reachable distance of the vehicle from which he could gain a weapon, thereby limiting the Court's prior holding in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). Additionally, the Court indicated that its prior holding in Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), that search of an arrestee's vehicle is proper if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of crime for which the driver was arrested, is of no help to the Arizona officers. In the Gant case the Court said it was not reasonable for the officer's to believe any evidence of the driving without a license offense would be retrieved from Gant's vehicle.
While this case limits the application of Belton it does not foreclose other lawful means for officers to search vehicles without a warrant, such as upon consent, an inventory, a Terry frisk, or under exigent circumstances. Certainly the legal justification for the search incident to arrest pursuant to Belton remains if the offender is still within reachable distance of the interior of the vehicle and it is reasonable that access to a weapon may be had. If there is reason to believe evidence of the offense resides in the vehicle then Thornton controls.
While this case limits the application of Belton it does not foreclose other lawful means for officers to search vehicles without a warrant, such as upon consent, an inventory, a Terry frisk, or under exigent circumstances. Certainly the legal justification for the search incident to arrest pursuant to Belton remains if the offender is still within reachable distance of the interior of the vehicle and it is reasonable that access to a weapon may be had. If there is reason to believe evidence of the offense resides in the vehicle then Thornton controls.
