ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Research

: New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library

U.S. Supreme Court Update: Arizona v. Gant

By David Badertscher, PLL

ADVERTISEMENTS

Source: A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

Arizona v. Gant No. 07-542

The Court ruled in

v. Gant (No. 07-542) today.

 

"Mr. Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car before officers searched his car and found cocaine in a jacket pocket. The

trial court denied respondents motion to suppress the evidence, and he was convicted of drug offenses.

 

The State Supreme Court reversed relying on Chimel v.

, 395
752
, which required that a search incident to arrest be justified by either the interest in officer safety or the interest in preserving evidence. The State Supreme Court found that the circumstances of Gant's arrest implicated neither of those interests and therefore the  search was unreasonable.

 

The USSC held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which the arrest is made.

 

Mr. Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, an offense for which police could not reasonably expect to find evidence in Mr. Gant's car. Cf. Knowles v.

, 525
113
. The search in this case was therefore unreasonable.


Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined, and in which Breyer, J., joined except as to Part II-E."

 

The full opinion is available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542ZS.html 

.

Full post as published by New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library on April 22, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0148 secs (new cache)