Brief Case
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Suffolk County Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
107
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by PresidentResolveMagpie3
Matthew Pereira
Arizona v. Gant
(2009)
Facts of the case:
In Arizona v. Gant (2009), the case was about Rodney
Gant’s arrest for driving with a suspended license after being stopped by police. After the police
officers apprehended Gant, they handcuffed him and put him in the back of their car. Three
officers then searched his car without any warrant. They found cocaine inside during the search.
This case brought an issue upon a search against Gant’s vehicle when he had already been
arrested and with no warrant issued.
Issue:
The main legal question for the Supreme Court of the United States was whether the
warrantless search of Gant’s car made after he had been arrested, violated the Fourth Amendment
which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Holding:
The U.S. Supreme Court majority decision was 5-4, that searching Gant’s vehicle
was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court did not comply with an expansive
interpretation of the arrest-incident-to-search doctrine under which a warrantless vehicle search
is permissible if such seizure is necessary for officer safety or if there is a possibility that the
arrestee may get into a vehicle (Case Law).
Reasoning of the majority:
In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens
stressed that individual privacy rights and excessive searches by the police must be curtailed. The
Court clarified that the search-incident-to-arrest exception was limited in its application. This
meant that such an exception would only be applicable if the person arrested could still reach the
vehicle at the time of the search or if there was reason to believe that it contained evidence
relating to the arrest (Law Cornell). The majority also put forward a perspective that there should
be some kind of balance between law enforcement interests and the fundamental rights addressed
by the Fourth Amendment.
Dissenting opinion:
Justice Samuel Alito expressed concerns about unjustified
restrictions on police power relating to searches conducted as part of arrests. Dissenting judges
noted that this ruling could lead to confusion amongst law enforcement officers making it
difficult for them to determine when they can legally search a car. However, they further
maintained that such uncertainty may impair their ability to protect themselves and gather
evidence associated with an arrest (Justia Law).
Your opinion & impact of the CJS:
I agree with the majority decision in
the Arizona v. Gant case because protection against unlawful searches is guaranteed under the
Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures serves as a primary defense for individual privacy rights. For example, it allows
searches of vehicles without a warrant after someone arrested is already in police custody, raises
concerns about potential abuse, and violates the spirit of the Fourth Amendment. In addition, the
decision gave clarity to law enforcement procedures by establishing a more precise standard for
when a search of a vehicle incident to arrest is constitutionally made the right way. Also, how to
maintain a balance between law enforcement interests and individual rights, which the decision
would reinforce the reliability of the criminal justice system.
Work Cited
“Arizona V. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).”
Justia Law
,
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/332.
“ARIZONA V. GANT, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-
court/556/332.html, caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/556/332.html.
“Arizona v. Gant.”
LII / Legal Information Institute
, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-542.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help