{"id":1824,"date":"2008-02-27T15:15:41","date_gmt":"2008-02-25T16:39:18","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-02-25T16:39:18","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1824","title":{"rendered":"Cert. granted in <em>Arizona v. Gant<\/em>, a search incident case"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>SCOTUS granted cert today in <em>Arizona v. Gant<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/docket\/07-542.htm\">07-542<\/a>, a search incident case where the Arizona Supreme Court held that Gant was not a &#8220;recent occupant&#8221; when he was locked up and in a police car at the time of the search incident.<\/p>\n<p>From <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/wp\/\">SCOTUSBlog<\/a>: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In the police search case (<em>Gant<\/em>), the Court said its review would be limited to the following issue: \u201cDoes the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle\u2019s recent occupants have been arrested and secured?\u201d  The state of Arizona contended in its appeal that the Arizona Supreme Court had undercut the Supreme Court\u2019s 1981 decision in <em>New York v. Belton<\/em>, which the state said laid down a bright-line rule allowing police to search a vehicle without a warrant following an arrest of the occupant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Also from SCOTUSBlog, the cert petition is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/docket\/07-542.htm\">here<\/a> and the brief in opposition is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/movabletype\/archives\/07-542_bio.pdf\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Comment and Update:<\/strong> I have always viewed <em>Belton<\/em> as a bright-line rule with such unique facts that it was a bad case for adoption of such a rule. The NY Times on Tuesday <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/02\/26\/washington\/26scotus.html?scp=1&amp;sq=gant&amp;st=nyt\">tucked <em>Gant<\/em> into a story<\/a> about Monday&#8217;s oral arguments with not much of an explanation. <em>Thornton<\/em> was better on the facts, and then the court wrote a sloppy opinion leaving a vagary that gives the defense plenty to argue, but no guidance to the courts or the police, which pretty much ignored it. Ever since studying criminal procedure in law school, it was obvious to me that search incident has been a justification in search of a rationale with cases all over the lot. See <em>Chapman v. United States<\/em>, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring): &#8220;The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not&#8211;to put it mildly&#8211;run smooth.&#8221;  So, <em>Gant<\/em> can shape up to be a better vehicle for resolving search incident cases, and we can expect it to favor the government, and Arizona will get the case back and follow the original decision under state law. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1824\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1824\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}