Arizona vs Gant

imported post

<<<WARNING: Epic post incoming!>>>


Thanks for the citations, but I'm still not convinced.

I would go citation-for-citation and explain why, but in the interest of brevity, I'll just say all of the citations rely on case law that the Gant court blasts for misconstruing the Belton doctrine. In fact, the Gant court specifically mentions Thornton.

Contrary to the State’s suggestion, a broad reading of Belton is also unnecessary to protect law enforcement safety and evidentiary interests. Under our view, Belton and Thornton permit an officer to conduct a vehicle search when an arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest...

Click to expand...

The Gant court also discusses the implications of allowing officers to "rummage" through vehicles outside of the strict exceptions to the 4th Amendment:

...Indeed, the character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment —the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.

Click to expand...

While the Gant decision doesn't specifically address the issue, SCOTUS gives a very clear and concise list of exceptions to the 4th amendment when it comes to vehicle searches. I still don't see anything that convinces me a "vehicle inventory" - without a warrant - is an exception to the rules reiterated in Gant.

The basis of the idea that "as long as it's regular policy/procedure, then it's OK" is somewhat in line with the logic of Arizona v Hicks and the "plain sight" doctrine. However, the false assumption is that an officer has the right to inventory a vehicle upon impounding that vehicle. The Gant opinion in fact reinforces the idea that the 4th Amendment applies to vehicles:

...the State seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake. Although we have recognized that a motorist’s privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home, see New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, 112–113 (1986) , the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection, see Knowles, 525 U. S., at 117.

Click to expand...

This should lead a logical person to conclude that the same rules and exceptions apply whether the search is incident to arrest or incident to impounding of the vehicle. The Gant court sends a VERY clear message to police: get a warrant. The court grants exception ONLY when there is a reasonable belief the arrestee can gain access to a weapon or evidence in the vehicle.

In essence, a impound vehicle inventory does not serve a significant state interest (such as preserving evidence or the life of a peace officer). Therefore, the 4th Amendment requirement to obtain a warrant MUST be observed.

With modern technology, it wouldn't be hard for cops to get a search warrant in the amount of time it takes to get a tow truck out to the scene of an arrest. And if it takes longer, just put some evidence tape across the doors/windows of the car, and store it securely until such time they can obtain a warrant.

imported post

Cool, nice review CA_Libertarian. Thanks for looking at it.

Personally, I think I've come to the same conclusions you have...for largely the same reasons. Unfortunately though, it seems there are many agencies out there now following the 'established practice' theory for impounds. Only time will tell to see how that irons out in the courts.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

SNIP...<<<WARNING: Epic post incoming!>>>

Click to expand...

I like the way you think.

However, I can't see police ignoring evidence discovered during an inventory search. I think courts have been allowing inventory-search-evidencefor quite a while, meaning the judicial side has an explanation all cooked-up...um...figured out and not only well-justified, but cemented in place through custom.

What you are saying, in effect, is that Gant over-ruled by omission whatever warrant exception was in place thatmade admissible evidence discovered during an inventory search.

I kinda don't think it is going to work that way. I'd love to be wrong; but I suspect the court is going to be more explicit if they intend to reverse an earlier SCOTUS decision.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

What you are saying, in effect, is that Gant over-ruled by omission whatever warrant exception was in place thatmade admissible evidence discovered during an inventory search.

Click to expand...

Not by omission... the court is very clear: the 4th Amendment requires a warrant, with very "narrow" exceptions where life/limb/evidence may be harmed/damaged/destroyed if immediate action is not taken.

In reading the decision the SCOTUS specifically addresses "vehicles searches incident to arrest" as being unconstitutional without meeting an exception criterion. This practice went on for over 30 years, and SCOTUS slapped down that policy.

I agree most agencies will continue to ignore the 4A until a case makes it to a federal appeal court and sets specific precident. Statist are like that... they'll just pretend to be more stupid than they really are in hopes they'll get away with trampling the US Constitution.