Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Arizona v. Gant

Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentsearch incident to arrestautomobilerecent occupantFourth Amendmentwarrantless searchsearch incident to arrest

Facts

Police learned that Rodney Gant had an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. When Gant later arrived at a house under police surveillance, officers arrested him after he exited and shut his car door, handcuffed him, and eventually locked him in the back of a patrol car. Only after Gant was secured did officers search his car and find a gun and cocaine in a jacket on the backseat. Gant moved to suppress, arguing he posed no access-based threat and that no evidence of the traffic offense would be found in the car.

Issue

Whether police may search a recent occupant's vehicle incident to arrest after the arrestee has been handcuffed and secured in a patrol car, and when the offense of arrest is driving with a suspended license. More specifically, whether Belton authorizes such a search when the arrestee cannot access the vehicle and there is no reason to believe evidence of the offense of arrest is inside.

Rule

Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or if it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When neither justification exists, the search is unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or another exception to the warrant requirement applies.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Officer Lena Ortiz stopped Caleb Moran for suspected shoplifting after watching him load unpaid electronics into his hatchback. Ortiz arrested Caleb beside the open driver-side door, but before backup arrived she had not yet handcuffed him, and he remained standing within arm's reach of the front seat when she searched the passenger compartment.

Is the warrantless search of the passenger compartment most likely valid as a search incident to arrest?

Explanation. The majority held that police may search a vehicle incident to arrest when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. Here, Caleb was not yet secured and was within arm's reach of the interior, so the Chimel-based officer-safety and evidence-preservation rationale applies. The rule is not limited to drug arrests, but it also does not authorize automatic searches after every recent-occupant arrest.