US Supreme Court Adds Limits to Police Searches of Vehicle After Suspect’s Arrest
In a suprising 5-4 opinion (pdf) from the US Supreme Court, the justices today held in Arizona v. Gant that, “Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” The opinion is by Justice Stevens, who is joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and, surprisingly, Scalia and Thomas.
The New York Times summarizes the case:
On Aug. 25, 1999, Mr. Gant was arrested for driving while his license was suspended. After he was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car, officers searched Mr. Gant’s car and found cocaine in the pocket of a jacket. The trial court denied Mr. Gant’s motion to suppress the drug evidence, but the Arizona high court ruled in the defendant’s favor, reasoning that the search was not necessary for the officers’ safety or to preserve evidence.
In today’s opinion, Justice Stevens upheld the ruling in Gant’s favor:
For several reasons, we reject the State’s argument. First, the State seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake. Although we have recognized that a motorist’s privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home, see New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, 112– 113 (1986), the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection, see Knowles, 525 U. S., at 117. It is particularly significant that Belton searches authorize police officers to search not just the passenger compartment but every purse, briefcase, or other container within that space. A rule that gives police the power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense, when there is no basis for believing evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals. Indeed, the character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment — the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.
In dissent, Justice Breyer said he would have adhered to the Belton precedent. “[T]hose who wish this Court to change a well-established legal precedent — where, as here, there has been considerable reliance on the legal rule in question — bear a heavy burden. [...] I have not found that burden met.”
Justice Stevens rejected this argument, saying precedent “does not require adherence to a broad reading of Belton. The experience of the 28 years since Belton has shown that the generalization underpinning the broad reading of that decision is unfounded, and blind adherence to its faulty assumption would authorize myriad unconstitutional searches.”
More coverage at the Washington Post and SCOTUSBlog.
Possibly related posts: