Arizona v. Gant

In August of 1999, Tucson, Arizona police officers Griffith and Reed went to a residence that they had received an anonymous tip that the house was being used to sell drugs. The officers knocked on the door, and Rodney Gant identified himself and informed the officers that the owner would later return. The two officers left the house and found in police records that Rodney Gant was wanted for driving with a suspended license, so they went back to the house to arrest Gant. At the house, they arrested a man for providing a false name and a woman for possession of drug paraphernalia. Soon after, a car pulled into the driveway and the officers recognized the driver as Gant. Officer Griffith arrested Gant and put him in the back of a separate police car. Two of the officers then searched Gant’s car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine. Gant was charged with drug violations, along with driving with a suspended license. (Arizona v. Gant (2009), 1)
The defense argued that the evidence should be suppressed because the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The state claimed that passenger compartments of vehicles can be searched without a warrant. The trial court ruled that the evidence could be used and Gant was sentenced to three years in prison. The Arizona Court reversed the decision stating that the search of Gant’s car was unreasonable because he could not have accessed his car at the time of the search. They referenced previous cases such as Chimel v. California and New York v. Belton(Arizona v. Gant (2009), 4). The Chimel decision stated the searching the car without a warrant can only happen if the area searched is in the arrestee’s immediate control. In the Belton case, they granted the officer permission to search the car if he had probable cause related to the arrest. Gant was not anywhere near his car at the time of the search and the evidentiary basis was lacking in his case. The United States voted 5-4 on this case, the majority siding with the decisions in New York v. Belton and Chimel v. California. The search can only occur in the area under the arrestee’s immediate control. The one exception to this is if the officer has probable cause to believe that there is evidence to support the crime that the arrestee is being arrested for. (Arizona v. Gant (2009), 5)
After much consideration, I agree with the majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens. I believe that an arrestee should only be searched if the officer believes that evidence for the arrest is present. I had difficulty with this concept because I also believe that you can never be too careful. Searching a car might seem like a small thing, but I am all about the crime shows and movies, and the smallest thing like searching a car can save someone’s life. I realize that this could be excessive, and it would add to our problems of police brutality, so the latter seems more practical and fair in this case.