Arizona v. Gant (1999) – PLSC 337-01: The American Legal System

On August 25, 1999, police in Tucson, Arizona received an anonymous tip that a resident on North Walnut Avenue was going to be used to sell drugs. Two officers, Griffin and Reed went to the suspect’s house only to find Gant answer the door to say the owner of the house would be home later that evening. Later that same evening, Griffin and Reed returned to the house and arrested a man near the back of the house for providing a false name, and arrested a woman in a car toward the front of the house for the possession of drug paraphernalia. Both were put into separate patrol cars and as this was happening, Gant arrived and Griffin immediately arrested him for driving with a suspended license.

After a third patrol car had arrived and Gant was secured, the officers searched Gant’s car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine in a jacket pocket, which was in the backseat. Gant was charged with drug violations; however, Gant’s attorney claimed that the evidence found should be inadmissible because there was no warrant present. While the trial court judge agreed with the government in that the evidence should be used, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed that decision.

The vote breakdown was 5-4. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the court and focused heavily on the exception to a warrant that was a search incident to a lawful arrest. Justice Stevens makes this point because he is concerned with the safety of officer’s when arresting a suspect. However, Justice Stevens also points out that this can only be an exception to having a warrant when the arrestee has the potential to reach into the area an officer seeks to search. Therefore, the Arizona Supreme court believed that a warrant was necessary because there was no way Gant could have reached into his car during the search (because he was locked away in a patrol car). Justice Breyer held the dissent and agreed with Justice Alito in that New York v. Belton (1981) permitted a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the lawful arrest of the owner of that vehicle.

The legal question in this case is: does conducting a warrantless search incident to the lawful arrest of an occupant violate the fourth amendment search and seizure clause? I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in this case that the evidence found by officer Griffin was inadmissible because I believe that (1) the arrest being made should coincide with the original charge and (2) that there was no probable cause for this allegation except from an anonymous tip. The problem with anonymous tips is that the source can be unreliable. Therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling that the evidence should not be used against Gant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6cSTngBn0

References

Arizona v. Gant 556 U.S. 332 (2009)

Brendan McGuigan says:

March 20, 2017 at 1:14 pm

Amanda, I agree with the decision of the court and with the two points you specifically outlined. Since Gant was arrested on an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license, the search of his car was unreasonable and lacked probable cause. The standard of probable cause is only met when the facts would lead a reasonable person to believe that a search is necessary. By this standard, an arrest for a suspended license does not reasonably seem to require a search. The only way probable cause could have been established was from the anonymous tip, but without more evidence to verify the tip, it is hard to see it as reliable and therefore it does not meet the standard of probable cause.

Carter Reynolds says:

March 20, 2017 at 3:17 pm

Amanda, I have to agree with your assertion that the Arizona Court made the correct decision. However I also agree with the point Justice Scalia makes in his concurring opinion, that a search of the vehicle may be constitutional if it is believed they will find evidence of the crime in question. I also agree that the anonymous tip should be properly verified in order for it to be acted upon. It would seem that the procedures for the inclusion of an anonymous tip was decided during Illinois v Gates, but clearly exceptions and loopholes are still found by the law enforcement offices.