Monday, February 25, 2019

Arizona vs Grant Case

On August 25, 1999, acting on an anonymous tip that the residency at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being apply to machinery drugs Tucson police force officeholders Griffith and Reed knocked on the front limen and asked to speak to the owner. Gant answered the door and, after identifying himself stated that he expected the owner to return later. The police officers go forth the residence and breedinged a records check, which revealed that Gants drivers license had been hang and there was an outstanding second for his point for driving with a hang up license.When the officers returned to the house that evening they found a earthly concern near the gage of the house and a woman in a gondola machine park in front of it. After a third officer arrived they throwed the man for providing a false name and the woman for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate guard cars when Gant arrived. The officers recognized his car as it ent ered the drive and officer Griffith confirmed that Gant was the driver by shining a flashlight into the car as it drove by him. Gant parked at the end of the driveway got out of his car and shut the door.Griffith who was about 30 feet away called to Gant, and they approached separately new(prenominal)wise(a) meeting 10 to 12 feet from Gants car. Griffith immediately arrested Gant and handcuffed him. Be unmingled motion the other arrestees were secured in the only patrol cars at the scene Griffith called for backup. When two more than officers arrived they locked Gant in the backseat of their vehicle. After Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car two officers attempted his car One of them found a particle accelerator and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the bag of a jacket on the backseat.Gant was charged with two curses possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia the waxy bag in which the cocaine was foun d He moved to annihilate the inference seized from his car on the ground that the mugless see violated the ordinal Amendment Among other things Gant argued that Belton did non authorize the explore of his vehicle be behave he comprise no threat to the officers after he was handcuffed in the patrol car and because he was arrested for a traffic offense for which no evidence could be found in his vehicle.I think that to better prepare for such(prenominal) an inquiry officers should focus on articulating the middlingness of any such hunt based on the following facts and circumstances (1) Distance The distance amid the arrestee and the place to be searched. 2) Restraints Whether the arrestee was handcuffed or otherwise restrained what kind of Restraints were used and whether the arrestee was handcuffed in the front or back (3) Display of guns or other weapons by officers Whether the police had weapons drawn or pointed at the arrestee or other suspects (4) Positioning Whether the police were positioned so as to block the arrestee suspects and bystanders from the vault of heaven to be searched. (5) Access The ease of access to the area or container itself to include whether a container is open or closed locked or unlocked. 6) Numbers The number of officers leave versus the number of arrestees, suspects, or bystanders. (7) Arrestees conduct Attempts made by the suspect before during, or after the arrest to access the area to be searched. (8) Reasonable change in circumstances Do police select to move the arrestee away from a dangerous environment into another reclusive area or groundwork police articulate a lawfulnessful need to retrieve something such as the arrestees shoes or clothing?Searches of a Vehicle Following Arrest of an Occupant or Recent Occupant Two Potential Justifications Arrestee could access the vehicle Gant held that police great power search a vehicle concomitant to arrest when the arrestee an house physician or recent occupant of the vehicle is unsecured and within reach distance of the rider compartment at the time of the search. The royal court noted, It allow be the rare case in which an officer is unable to fully ensnare an arrest so that a real possibility of access to the arrestees vehicle remains. In such a rare case in time an SIA of the passenger compartment would be just under the Fourth Amendment.Since Chimel justifies this search officers whitethorn search for weapons any evidence of any crime and means of escape. annoyance related evidence skill be in the vehicle. Even if the arrestee can no longer access the vehicles passenger compartment the Court held that an SIA will also be permitted when it is reasonable to trust evidence pertinent to the crime of arrest skill be found in the vehicle. In many cases, such as arrests for traffic violations or outstanding arrest warrants there will be no reasonable basis to cogitate that the vehicle contains relevant evidence of the crime.In ot her cases however such as arrests for possession of controlled substances the basis of the arrest will supply an pleasing rationale for meddling the arrestees passenger compartment and any containers inside. In a case where the search is justified by the possibility of locating offense related evidence in the vehicle officers are limited to searching only those places in the passenger compartment where the offense related evidence might be located. How to define the reasonable to believe standard? Is it the same as probable cause or is it something less?One must liken the search incident to arrest excommunication in Gant to another steadfastly established search warrant exception to find the most apparent answer. In U. S. v. Carroll the supreme Court established the mobile conveyance exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement. under this exception an officer may search a readily mobile conveyance without a warrant upon probable cause that it contains evide nce or contraband. Once this standard is met the officer may search any area of the vehicle to include the luggage compartment compartment if that area may contain the objects of the search.The rule in a Gant search incident to arrest however first requires a lawful tutelary arrest of an occupant or recent occupant of a vehicle. A search of the passenger compartment incident to arrest is then justified by a reasonable belief that evidence of the crime of arrest might be in the car. If Gants reasonable to believe standard is bear upon to probable cause then the Court has created an M. C. Escher-like puzzle. An officer who has made a custodial arrest and has a reasonable belief equald to probable cause that evidence of the crime of arrest might be in the car could search only the passenger compartment.An officer who has made no arrest but has probable cause to believe that evidence of any crime is in the car could search the entire vehicle. In other wrangling the officer who meet s the higher standard custodial arrest probable cause for particular evidence gets to search less but the officer who meets the lesser standard probable cause for any evidence can search more. At best the Court would have created a new search warrant exception that is instantly swallowed by another that has existed for almost 85 years. The better explanation is that reasonable means. easonable. There is no need to equate reasonable to believe to a percentage or particular train of probability in fact the Supreme Court has stated the examination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise interpretation or mechanical application. preferably as in issues regarding an officers use of force the proper application of the reasonableness standard requires calculated attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case and must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.The ultimate unbelief should be whether another reas onable officer if confronted with the same facts and circumstances could believe that evidence of the arrestees crime might be found in the vehicle the arrestee recently occupied. Facts and circumstances leading to such a reasonable belief will include information about the offense and the wrongdoer the age of the information the nature of the crime at issue the demeanor of the arrestee before during and after the arrest ownership and control of the vehicle and results of mocking arrestees and occupants.The Court did not expound upon why it believed vehicles to be special in this context but Justice Scalias concurrence in Thornton from which the terminology was taken reminds us that motor vehicles are a category of do which give rise to a reduced expectation of privacy and heightened law enforcement needs. Therefore it appears as though officers may not justify a search of an arrestees non vehicular lunging area based upon a reasonable belief that evidence of his crime might be found therein.Rather they will have to articulate reason to believe that the arrestee could access the area at the time of the search. Other Vehicle Search Exceptions Remain functional If an officer cannot justify a search of a vehicle incident to arrest under Gant or is uncertain whether an SIA is warranted other established exceptions to the search warrant requirement remain available to safeguard evidence and encourage the safety of officers. 1) If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a passenger or recent occupant of a vehicle whether arrested or not is dangerous and may gain access to a weapon he may frisk the passenger compartment for weapons This exception is known as a Terry frisk of the vehicle. (2) If the officer has probable cause that the vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity the officer may conduct a organic search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.This exception is the aforementioned mobile conveyance exception or the Ca rroll Doctrine. (3) If an officer conducting an arrest reasonably suspects that a dangerous person is hiding in a nearby vehicle he may conduct a protective sweep of the vehicle by looking in places where such a person might be concealed. (4) Consent will always allow an officer to search as long as it is given voluntarily by one with actual or apparent authority to give it and the officer stays within the boundaries of the consent given. 5) Although not permitted for use as a criminal search tool an officer who effects a lawful impound of a vehicle may memorandum its contents in accordance with standardized agency policy. If the inventory is performed lawfully any evidence or contraband identified during the butt on may be seized and used as evidence in a criminal prosecution and may provide justification for another warrant exception. References Law professor Tomkovicz writes brief for case in upcoming Supreme Court term. The Press-Citizen. 2008-09-29. http//www. google. com ht tp//en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Arizona_v. _Gant

No comments:

Post a Comment