Page 25 - TPA Journal July August 2018

Arizona v. Gant Decided in 2009, this case
changed the scope of when, where, and why a
motor vehicle may be searched incident to the
arrest of an occupant for traffic offenses,
including outstanding arrest warrants for traffic
related crimes such as driving while license
invalid, which was the nexus of the Gant case.
Having information Gant was wanted for DWLI,
officers observed him behind the steering wheel,
driving, and in care, custody, control, and
management of a motor vehicle being operated on
a public roadway. Gant was stopped and arrested,
removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and
secured in a police vehicle. During a search of
Gants vehicle incident to arrest and while
applying the Belton standards, the officers located school practices adhered to under the Belton
a handgun and cocaine within the pocket of a
jacket (container) lying on the back seat and Gant
was subsequently charged with unlawfully
carrying and possession of a controlled substance.
Gant moved to suppress the evidence located
during the search by claiming the officers violated
his 4 th Amendment rights to protection from
unlawful search and seizure. Ultimately the S.Ct.
found that the search of Gants car was
unconstitutional under the 4 th Amendment and
the charges against him were reversed because the
search failed to uphold two key prongs which
must be applied to searches of motor vehicles
incident to lawful custodial arrest.
The Officer Safety Prong Because Gant was
removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and
secured in a police vehicle, the Court reasoned he
was in no way a threat to officer safety,
specifically citing his inability to recover a
weapon from within the passenger compartment
of the vehicle. Officer safety is a primary
consideration when allowing for searches of
motor vehicles incident to arrest, and according to vehicle incident to custodial arrest based on
July/August 2018 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282
the Court, Gant represented no such threat,
thereby negating the legality of the search. Per the
Gant decision, the police may search the
passenger compartment of a vehicle for safety
purposes incident to the lawful custodial arrest of
an occupant when the arrestee is unsecured and
within the reaching distance of the passenger
compartment of the vehicle at the time of the
police search of that vehicle. Gant was clearly
restrained by handcuffs and secured in a locked
police vehicle at the time his vehicle was
searched, and the safety prong was not applicable.
This was the first limit on police search authority
cited in the Gant case; however, it was not the
only limit representing a variance from the old
rules for over 30 years.
The Evidentiary Prong The Gant case stressed
that searches of motor vehicles incident to the
custodial arrest of an occupant must be based on
an officer s reasonable belief that evidence
relevant to the crime justifying the arrest may be
found in the vehicle of the arrested occupant. As
Gant illustrates, in most cases involving arrests
for traffic related offenses, the law enforcement
officer would not typically have a reasonable
belief the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the
crime of arrest. It would be unreasonable to think
further evidence supporting the arrest, based on
prima facie evidence of a traffic offense, would be
found concealed in the passenger compartment of
the arrestees vehicle. The protection and/or
discovery of evidence related to an arrest for
traffic offenses, or the evidentiary prong, is also
inapplicable in instances such as the Gant case
and most others involving traffic related crimes.
Officers should apply logic and common sense
when attempting to justify a search of a motor
21