Arizona v. Gant, Rodney (10/20/2003)

Questions presented: When police arrest the recent occupant of a vehicle outside the vehicle, are they precluded from searching the vehicle pursuant to New York v. Belton unless the arrestee was actually or constructively aware of the police before getting out of the vehicle?

BY MORGAN EVANS, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

In 1999, Tucson police knocked on the door of Rodney Gants single-family home, looking for drugs. Gant answered the door and told police that Gant wasnt home, so the police left, and did a further background checking on Gant. They found that he was wanted on a suspended driver's license and an outstanding warrant for failure to appear.

When they returned to the house, he was gone, but two people were in the house, one whom police found with a crack pipe. At that point, Gant drove up. When he pulled into the driveway, an officer shined a flashlight into his car, but he stepped out before the police contacted him in any other way. The police then searched the car and found a handgun and a jacket, in which was a plastic bag of cocaine.

Prior to trial on charges of unlawful possession of both cocaine and drug paraphernalia, Gant moved to suppress the admission of the cocaine and the gun at trial, because it was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment. His motion was denied, on the ground that the warrantless search was incident to the lawful arrest of Gant. With the evidence admitted at trial, Gant was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

On March 29, 2002, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the warrantless search was illegal.

"The twin concerns of officer safety and evidence preservation that justify, at least theoretically, the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement disappear because the vehicles passenger compartment is not available to the arrested," wrote Judge William Brammer.

In finding the search illegal because Gant could not have reached the gun and the drugs, and thus couldnt have destroyed evidence or harmed the officers, the Arizona appeals court looked to the 1981 U.S. Supreme Court case of New York v. Belton for its guidance. It distinguished Belton, which allowed warrantless searches so long as they were "contemporaneous incident" to the lawful arrest by noting that Gant had "voluntarily - that is, not in response to police direction - stopped his vehicle, exited it, and began to walk away from it."

One judge, though he concurred in the result, expressed concern that the Belton case, which was supposed to establish a "bright-line rule" by which police could search cars incident to a suspects arrest, was being muddied by the courts result:

"Would a suspect who has one foot in the vehicle and one on the ground be deemed "in" or "out" for purposes of Belton? Would that depend on whether some part of his body was still touching the seat? What if he had both feet on the ground but the door is still open and he's leaning into the passenger compartment - or just reaching in? What if he's sitting on the tailgate of a station wagon but his feet are touching the ground - could he merely stand up to render Belton inapplicable? What if the suspect is standing outside the vehicle but has left the engine running? ...[C]ould the initial contact [by police] be non-verbal, such as a signal by hand, whistle, or flashlight? Or, because an actual-occupancy concept necessarily depends on the suspect's precise physical location at the time of contact, would the initial contact have to involve at least the officer's present ability to make immediate physical contact?" wrote Judge John Pelander. "Under such a rule, given the endless variations in the facts that Fourth Amendment issues inevitably engender, suppression hearings on Belton searches could become extended mini-trials on factual minutiae, and the actions of police officers in the field would have no predictable legal consequences in the courtroom."

On April 21, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for review.

Randall Howe, who will be presenting oral arguments for the prosecution, reinforced Judge Pelanders concerns about the confusion the opinion would engender.

"If the officer can make an inference that the person was a recent occupant of the car, they should be able to search it without a warrant," said Howe.

While the Arizona Court of Appeals, and the defense, defined "recent occupant" in terms of how close Gant was to the car when the officer contacted him, Howe said this is too hazy a standard:

"Does the person have to be in the car when the officer contacts him?" he asked. "Can he be right outside the car; what if hes sitting on it?"

Howe said officer safety comes first, and that police therefore shouldnt have to judge minute distances at a potentially dangerous crime-scene. Gants weapon was clearly out of arms reach, but Howe said the particular circumstances of the case do not change the general rule.

Thomas Jacobs, Gants lawyer, said officer safety should not conflict with a defendants constitutional rights.

"That's like saying an officer is going to take greater risks to push the limits of the law," he said. "If hes trying to violate the guys 4th amendment rights to get a collar; I have no sympathy for him."

Jacobs also said that basing the definition of "recent occupant" on the arresting officers opinion is wrong.

"You cant look at the officers right to search," he said. "The police have no rights; the guy in the car has the rights."

Both sides agreed that the Court probably took the case to clarify what "recent occupant" means.

On Oct. 20, 2003, after the case was set for oral argument in November, the Court vacated the judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Arizona Supreme Court opinion in State v. Dean, 76 P. 3d 429.