The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated important limitations on police officers' authority to search a vehicle after the vehicle's occupants have been arrested. The Court's majority in Arizona v. Gant stated that "Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to [after] 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." In other words, once a person has been arrested and moved away from the vehicle, police may not initiate a search unless that search pertains to evidence related to the crime for which the person was arrested.
Through the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, all United States citizens enjoy a protection against unreasonable search and seizure on the part of the government. This limitation is not absolute, however, with exceptions existing for instances when time and circumstance do not permit obtaining a search warrant from a judge, such as when police are chasing a suspect and that suspect enters his home.
The Court has looked to balance the need to preserve evidence and ensure police officer safety with the need to protect individual's privacy. In Gant, the Court ruled that once a vehicle's occupants have been arrested and police officer safety has been secured, police may search the vehicle only when it is "reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle."
So in practical terms, Gant means this: once a suspect has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car, a warrantless search of the suspect's vehicle can only be conducted by the police for evidence related to the particular crime for which the person was arrested. If someone were arrested for a traffic violation, for example, the police can't conduct a general search of the vehicle without first obtaining a warrant. If someone were arrested on drug charges, though, a search for drug related items would be justified according to the Court's decision.
One way that these rules have been circumvented is when a person is arrested and does not have anyone to drive his/her car home. Police can then impound the vehicle and conduct an "inventory search." Evidence discovered in that search might then be used against the suspect.
This ruling highlights the complexity and ever changing nature of the scope and limitations of the Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. If you or someone you know faces charges like those described above, contact our office to discuss what we can do to help you protect your rights.
Arizona V. Gant, U.S. Supreme Court
