## Facts

- Tucson police investigated suspected narcotics activity at a residence and encountered Rodney Joseph Gant earlier that day.
- Officers learned Gant had an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license.
- Later, when Gant arrived, parked, and exited his vehicle, officers arrested him on the warrant.
- Gant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a locked patrol car; multiple officers were present and the scene was secured.
- After Gant was secured, officers conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle’s passenger compartment.
- Police found a handgun and cocaine in a jacket pocket on the backseat.
- Gant moved to suppress the evidence under the Fourth Amendment; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him of drug offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search of a vehicle incident to arrest after the recent occupant has been arrested, handcuffed, and secured.
2. Whether *New York v. Belton* authorizes an automatic passenger-compartment search incident to arrest regardless of the arrestee’s ability to access the vehicle.
3. Whether a vehicle search incident to arrest is permissible when officers reasonably believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Arizona Supreme Court and held the search unconstitutional.
- *Belton* does not authorize a vehicle search incident to arrest once the arrestee is secured and cannot access the vehicle’s interior at the time of the search.
- Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when:
  - it is reasonable to believe the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search; or
  - it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
- Because Gant was secured and the offense of arrest (driving with a suspended license) did not support a reasonable belief that relevant evidence would be found in the car, the search was unreasonable.

## Legal Principles

- Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to specifically established exceptions.
- The search-incident-to-arrest exception is justified by officer safety and preservation of evidence and is limited to areas within the arrestee’s immediate control.
- A vehicle passenger-compartment search incident to arrest is valid only if, at the time of the search, (1) the arrestee could reasonably access the vehicle, or (2) officers reasonably believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
- Routine traffic-related arrests that are unlikely to generate physical evidence (e.g., license-status offenses) generally do not justify a vehicle search incident to arrest once the arrestee is secured.
- When neither prong applies, officers must obtain a warrant or rely on another recognized exception (such as the automobile exception with probable cause).

## Conclusion

The Court limited vehicle searches incident to arrest by rejecting an automatic rule and requiring either a realistic access-based safety/evidence concern at the time of the search or a reasonable belief that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.


Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)