Gant Ppt

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. SegarAFSCME Public Safety CongressLas Vegas, NV November 2009

Law Enforcement After Gant . . .

What happened and what can we expect?


United States Supreme CourtArizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009)

The U.S. Supreme Court limited the

circumstances under which officers may search the passenger

compartment of a vehicle after it’s driver had been arrested. The

Court ruled that an officer can only search a vehicle if it is for officer

safety or if there is reason to believe that

there is evidence in the car that relates to the

crime which the driver was arrested for.


Why is “Labor” concerned with

Administrative issues ?


“Police officers must obey the law while enforcing the law.”

Spano v. New York, 79 S.Ct. 1202 (1959)


What is the Law?


What Happened ?


What may I do?


The Law . . .

Katz v. U.S. (1967) . . . Chimel v. California (1969) . . . New York v Belton (1981) . . .

Maryland v. Buie (1990). . .Thornton v. United States (2004) . . .

now . . . Arizona v. Gant



Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

The United States Supreme Court decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from

unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities

without a warrant.

“reasonable expectation of privacy”


The holding of

Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969), continues to be good law, insofar as the search

incident to arrest can be justified by the suspect’s ability to lunge to an area and

destroy evidence or reach a weapon.


The Fourth Amendment rule of New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which permits police officers to

make an immediate search of the passenger compartment of an automobile incident to the arrest of an occupant or "recent occupant," applies when officers do not initiate contact with the occupant until after he has voluntarily exited the vehicle and walked away

from it.


The Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest

when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on

the arrest scene. In holding that, respectively, an on-the-street "frisk" and a

roadside search of an automobile's passenger compartment were reasonable despite the absence of a

warrant or probable cause.

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990)


In Thornton v. United States, 541 U. S. 615 (2004), the Court recognized that a search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent

occupant may be also justified “when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the

vehicle.”


THORTON

Chimel

Buie

Gant

Putting it all

together



What Happened ?






Belton GantOne Police Officer 5

Police Officers

4 Occupants of the Car Three suspects/arrestees

None are handcuffed All are handcuffed

M/V violation w/ marijuana odor Suspended license

Evidence NO EVIDENCE


What may I do?


One of the practical dangers of the decision in Arizona v. Gant that some officers may conclude that there

is a practical balancing act, or a tactical trade-off so to speak. An Officer may leave the suspect unsecured, un-handcuffed, and near the car, so that there remains the

possibility that that suspect would lunge toward a weapon and thus, create the legal justification for a search. The

legal justification may come at the cost of a significant risk to the officers’ safety.


Identify another search warrant exception

Understand the limitiations of the charges

Know when Gant applies

Articulate your facts

Do not sacrifice safety!



Attorney Marshall T. Segar

860.303.3524

[email protected]

www.marshalllawusa.com

Gant Ppt

Documents

united states

attorney marshall

legal justification

nv november 2009

passenger compartment

recent occupant

officer

reasonable