ARIZONA V. GANT -If you are viewing this presentation on a Windows PC, press F5 to begin. -If you are viewing this presentation on a Mac, simultaneously.

ARIZONA V. GANT -If you are viewing this presentation on a Windows PC, press F5 to begin. -If you are viewing this presentation on a Mac, simultaneously press COMMAND and ENTER. -Press ENTER to continue.

ARIZONA V. GANT SELF-STUDY COURSE
CPL. K. S. BUCK FULTON COUNTY MARSHAL’S DEPARTMENT Press ENTER to continue Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, available at (it is free, but registration is required); also available at .

Welcome to the Arizona v. Gant Self-Study Course.
Press ENTER to continue

Press ENTER to continue
IMPORTANT NOTICE!  The purpose of this course is to familiarize law enforcement officers with the U.S. Supreme Court’s (2009) decision in Arizona v. Gant. It is not a substitute for the advice of a qualified attorney.  If you are uncertain about how to apply the law in a particular situation, consult with your agency’s legal counsel. Press ENTER to continue

A STORY… Press ENTER to continue

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST
KNOCK AND TALK On August 25, 1999, acting on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being used to sell drugs, Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed knocked on the front door and asked to speak to the owner. Rodney Gant answered the door and, after identifying himself, stated that he expected the owner to return later. Press ENTER to continue “On August 25, 1999, acting on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being used to sell drugs, Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed knocked on the front door and asked to speak to the owner. [Rodney] Gant answered the door and, after identifying himself, stated that he expected the owner to return later.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *6.

A WARRANT AND A LICENSE SUSPENSION The officers left the residence and conducted a records check, which revealed that Mr. Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license. Press ENTER to continue “The officers left the residence and conducted a records check, which revealed that [Mr.] Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *6.

UPSTANDING CITIZENS When the officers returned to the house that evening, they found a man near the back of the house and a woman in a car parked in front of it. After a third officer arrived, they arrested the man for providing a false name and the woman for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when Mr. Gant arrived. Press ENTER to continue “When the officers returned to the house that evening, they found a man near the back of the house and a woman in a car parked in front of it. After a third officer arrived, they arrested the man for providing a false name and the woman for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when [Mr.] Gant arrived.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *6-7.

THE RETURN OF GANT The officers recognized his car as it entered the driveway, and Officer Griffith confirmed that Mr. Gant was the driver by shining a flashlight into the car as it drove by him. Mr. Gant parked at the end of the driveway, got out of his car, and shut the door. Officer Griffith, who was about 30 feet away, called to Mr. Gant, and they approached each other, meeting 10-to-12 feet from Mr. Gant’s car. Officer Griffith immediately arrested Mr. Gant and handcuffed him. Press ENTER to continue “The officers recognized his car as it entered the driveway, and Officer Griffith confirmed that [Mr.] Gant was the driver by shining a flashlight into the car as it drove by him. [Mr.] Gant parked at the end of the driveway, got out of his car, and shut the door. [Officer] Griffith, who was about 30 feet away, called to [Mr.] Gant, and they approached each other, meeting 10-to-12 feet from [Mr.] Gant’s car. [Officer] Griffith immediately arrested [Mr.] Gant and handcuffed him.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *7.

THE THINGS YOU FIND… Because the other arrestees were secured in the only patrol cars at the scene, Officer Griffith called for backup. When two more officers arrived, they locked Mr. Gant in the backseat of their vehicle. After Mr. Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car: One of them found a gun, and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. Press ENTER to continue “Because the other arrestees were secured in the only patrol cars at the scene, [Officer] Griffith called for backup. When two more officers arrived, they locked [Mr.] Gant in the backseat of their vehicle. After [Mr.] Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car: One of them found a gun, and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *7.

MORE CHARGES Mr. Gant was charged with two additional offenses—possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia (i.e., the plastic bag in which the cocaine was found). Press ENTER to continue “[Mr.] Gant was charged with two [additional] offenses—possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia (i.e., the plastic bag in which the cocaine was found).” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, 7-8*.

BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS WE CAN…
Mr. Gant moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. When asked at the suppression hearing why the search was conducted, Officer Griffith responded: “Because the law says we can do it.” Press ENTER to continue “[Mr. Gant] moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120,*8. “When asked at the suppression hearing why the search was conducted, Officer Griffith responded: ‘Because the law says we can do it.’” Id.

-Press ENTER to continue
THE QUESTION… -Press ENTER to continue

THE QUESTION Mr. Gant was originally arrested for driving with a suspended license and for an outstanding warrant (also for driving with a suspended license). Mr. Gant was arrested outside of his car, handcuffed, and locked in the backseat of a patrol car. Once Mr. Gant was secured, the Tucson police officers searched the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car. Press ENTER to continue Mr. Gant was originally arrested for driving with a suspended license and for an outstanding warrant (also for driving with a suspended license). See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *6-7. Mr. Gant was arrested outside of his car, handcuffed, and locked in the backseat of a patrol car. Id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *7. Once Mr. Gant was secured, the Tucson police officers searched the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car. Id.

THE QUESTION Officer Griffin believed that, under these circumstances, he was authorized to search the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car as part of the search incident to the arrest. Was Officer Griffin correct? If you think that Officer Griffin was correct… click here ►  If you think that Officer Griffin was incorrect… Officer Griffin believed that, under these circumstances, he was authorized to search the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car as part of the search incident to the arrest. See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *8. NOTE: If you think that Officer Griffin was correct… click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 17. If you think that Officer Griffin was incorrect… click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 17.

THE QUESTION Sorry. You must selected an answer. Click here ►  to go back so you can select an answer. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 15.

A LITTLE HISTORY Before we decide whether Officer Griffin was correct, a little background on searches and seizures, in general, and searches incident to arrest, in particular, might be helpful. Press ENTER to continue

A LITTLE HISTORY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT The United States Constitution provides that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ” Press ENTER to continue The United States Constitution provides that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ” U.S. Const. amend. IV.

A LITTLE HISTORY WOLF v. COLORADO The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Fourth Amendment applicable to the governments of individual states and to prosecutions under state law. Press ENTER to continue The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Fourth Amendment applicable to the governments of individual states and to prosecutions under state law. Wolf v. Colo., 338 U.S. 25, (1949) (“The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police-which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment-is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment].”). See also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 660 (1961) (“Having once recognized that the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore, constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise. Because it is enforceable in the same manner and to like effect as other basic rights secured by the Due Process Clause, we can no longer permit it to be revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name of law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment.”).

A LITTLE HISTORY KATZ v. UNITED STATES The Supreme Court declared that, based on the Fourth Amendment, a search without a warrant conducted by a government agent (including a law enforcement officer) is unconstitutional unless the search falls within the “few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions [to the requirement for a warrant].” Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court declared that, based on the Fourth Amendment, a search without a warrant conducted by a government agent (including a law enforcement officer) is unconstitutional unless the search falls within the “few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions [to the requirement for a warrant].” Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967).

A LITTLE HISTORY WEEKS v. UNITED STATES The Supreme Court acknowledged that a search incident to a lawful arrest is an exception to the requirement for a warrant. Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court acknowledged that a search incident to a lawful arrest is an exception to the requirement for a warrant. Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383, 392 (1914) (Search incident to arrest in a expression of “the right on the part of the government[,] always recognized under English and American law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested, to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. This right has been uniformly maintained in many cases.”).

A LITTLE HISTORY UNITED STATES v. ROBINSON The Supreme Court concluded that the justifications for the search incident to arrest exception are officer safety and preservation of evidence. The officer safety justification rests on the need to disarm the arrested person. Likewise, the evidence preservation justification rests on the need to prevent the arrested person from destroying evidence of a criminal offense. Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court concluded that the justifications for the search incident to arrest exception are officer safety and preservation of evidence. U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 (1973) (“The justification or reason for the authority to search incident to a lawful arrest rests quite as much on the need to disarm the suspect in order to take him into custody as it does on the need to preserve evidence on his person for later use at trial.”). The officer safety justification rests on the need to disarm the arrested person. Id. Likewise, the evidence preservation justification rests on the need to prevent the arrested person from destroying evidence of a criminal offense. Id.

A LITTLE HISTORY CHIMEL v. CALIFORNIA The Supreme Court declared that a search incident to arrest was limited to “the person” (the body and clothing) of the arrested person and the area within his or her immediate control. Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court declared that a search incident to arrest was limited to “the person” (the body and clothing) of the arrested person and the area within his or her immediate control. Chimel v. Cal., 395 U.S. 752, (1963) (“A similar analysis underlies the ‘search incident to arrest’ principle, and marks its proper extent. When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer's safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee's person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ - construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.”).

A LITTLE HISTORY PRESTON v. UNITED STATES The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer could not search a location incident to arrest unless the arrested person could physically utilize weapons or escape tools or destroy evidence in the location at the time of the search. The purpose of searching a location incident to an arrest is to prevent the arrested person from acquiring or utilizing a weapon or escape tool or destroying evidence in that location. Once the arrested person is away from the location, the justification for the search disappears. Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer could not search a location incident to arrest unless the arrested person could physically utilize weapons or escape tools or destroy evidence in the location at the time of the search. Preston v. U.S., 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964) (“The rule allowing contemporaneous searches is justified, for example, by the need to seize weapons and other things which might be used to assault an officer or effect an escape, as well as by the need to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime - things which might easily happen where the weapon or evidence is on the accused’s person or under his immediate control. But these justifications are absent where a search is remote in time or place from the arrest. Once an accused is under arrest and in custody, then a search made at another place, without a warrant, is simply not incident to the arrest”). The purpose of searching a location incident to an arrest is to prevent the arrested person from acquiring or utilizing a weapon or escape tool or destroying evidence in that location. Id. Once the arrested person is away from the location, the justification for the search disappears. Id.

A LITTLE HISTORY KNOWLES v. IOWA The Supreme Court declared that a law enforcement officer may conduct a full search incident to arrest only in a case when an actual custodial arrest is made. This means that a complete search incident to arrest is not authorized in a case when a violator is issued a citation (or a ticket or similar notice) and released instead of being transported to jail. However, even in a case when a violator is simply issued a citation, an officer may “frisk” the violator (in accordance with Terry v. Ohio) and “conduct a ‘Terry patdown’ of the passenger compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon ” Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court declared that a law enforcement officer may conduct a full search incident to arrest only in a case when an actual custodial arrest is made. See Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, (1998) (holding that the justifications that authorize a full search in incident to arrest are applicable to a custodial arrest, but not in a situation when a person is issued a citation in lieu of custodial arrest). This means that a complete search incident to arrest is not authorized in a case when a violator is issued a citation (or a ticket or similar notice) and released instead of being transported to jail. See id. However, even in a case when a violator is simply issued a citation, an officer may “frisk” the violator (in accordance with Terry v. Ohio) and “conduct a ‘Terry patdown’ of the passenger compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon ” Id. at (A law enforcement officer “may order out of a vehicle both the driver and any passengers ; perform a ‘patdown’ of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous ; conduct a ‘Terry patdown’ of the passenger compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon ”) (citations omitted).

SO, WAS OFFICER GRIFFIN RIGHT?
Again, Mr. Gant was originally arrested for driving with a suspended license and for an outstanding warrant (also for driving with a suspended license). Mr. Gant was arrested outside of his car, handcuffed, and locked in the backseat of a patrol car. Once Mr. Gant was secured, police officers searched the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car. Press ENTER to continue Again, Mr. Gant was originally arrested for driving with a suspended license and for an outstanding warrant (also for driving with a suspended license). See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *6-7. Mr. Gant was arrested outside of his car, handcuffed, and locked in the backseat of a patrol car. Id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *7. Once Mr. Gant was secured, police officers searched the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car. Id.

SO, WAS OFFICER GRIFFIN RIGHT?
Officer Griffin believed that he was authorized to search Mr. Gant’s car as part of the search incident to the arrest. Was Officer Griffin correct? Press ENTER to continue Officer Griffin believed that he was authorized to search Mr. Gant’s car as part of the search incident to the arrest. See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *8. Was Officer Griffin correct?

THE ANSWER… -Press ENTER to continue

THE ANSWER No. In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that the search of Mr. Gant’s car was not a legitimate search incident to arrest. Therefore, the evidence discovered during the search was inadmissible. The cocaine and the plastic bag that the officers found must be suppressed. Press ENTER to continue No. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *11-12, (“[T]he scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy. If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply. . . . Neither the possibility of access nor the likelihood of discovering offense-related evidence authorized the search in this case. Unlike in Belton, which involved a single officer confronted with four unsecured arrestees, the five officers in this case outnumbered the three arrestees, all of whom had been handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars before the officers searched Gant’s car. Under those circumstances, Gant clearly was not within reaching distance of his car at the time of the search. An evidentiary basis for the search was also lacking in this case. Whereas Belton and Thornton were arrested for drug offenses, Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license—an offense for which police could not expect to find evidence in the passenger compartment of Gant’s car. Because police could not reasonably have believed either that Gant could have accessed his car at the time of the search or that evidence of the offense for which he was arrested might have been found therein, the search in this case was unreasonable.”) (citations omitted). In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that the search of Mr. Gant’s car was not a legitimate search incident to arrest. Id. Therefore, the evidence discovered during the search was inadmissible. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961) (“[A]ll evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a state court.”). The cocaine and the plastic bag that the officers found must be suppressed. Id.

SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST
A search incident to arrest is an exception to the constitutional requirement for a warrant. This exception is based on two separate justifications: officer safety and evidence preservation. Press ENTER to continue A search incident to arrest is an exception to the constitutional requirement for a warrant. Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383, 392 (1914) (Search incident to arrest in a expression of “the right on the part of the government[,] always recognized under English and American law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested, to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. This right has been uniformly maintained in many cases.”). This exception is based on two separate justifications: officer safety and evidence preservation. U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 (1973) (“The justification or reason for the authority to search incident to a lawful arrest rests quite as much on the need to disarm the suspect in order to take him into custody as it does on the need to preserve evidence on his person for later use at trial.”). Chimel v. Cal., 395 U.S. 752, (1963) (“A similar analysis underlies the ‘search incident to arrest’ principle, and marks its proper extent. When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer's safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee's person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ - construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.”).

SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST
The officer safety justification rests on the need of law enforcement officers to search for and seize weapons and escape tools in order to prevent arrested persons from acquiring, retaining, or using them. Likewise, the evidence preservation justification rests on the need of officers to search for and seize criminal evidence to prevent its destruction. Press ENTER to continue The officer safety justification rests on the need of law enforcement officers to search for and seize weapons and escape tools in order to prevent arrested persons from acquiring, retaining, or using them. U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 (1973); Chimel v. Cal., 395 U.S. 752, (1963). Likewise, the evidence preservation justification rests on the need of officers to search for and seize criminal evidence to prevent its destruction. Robinson, 414 U.S. at 234; Chimel, 395 U.S. at

THE SEARCH IN ARIZONA v. GANT
The Supreme Court reasoned that neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justified the search of the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car. Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court reasoned that neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justified the search of the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *11-12,

THE SEARCH IN ARIZONA v. GANT
Mr. Gant was arrested 10 to 12 feet from his car. The search of the passenger compartment was conducted when Mr. Gant was handcuffed and secured in the back of a police car. It was impossible for Mr. Gant to access weapons or escape tools or destroy evidence in the passenger compartment of his car at the time of the search, because, at the time of the search, Mr. Gant was locked in the back of a police car. The search of the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car was unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. Press ENTER to continue Mr. Gant was arrested 10 to 12 feet from his car. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *7. The search of the passenger compartment was conducted when Mr. Gant was handcuffed and secured in the back of a police car. Id. It was impossible for Mr. Gant to access weapons or escape tools or destroy evidence in the passenger compartment of his car at the time of the search, because, at the time of the search, Mr. Gant was locked in the back of a police car. See id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *21. (“[Gant] has been handcuffed and secured in [a] patrol car[] before the officers searched [his] car. Under those circumstances, Gant clearly was not within reaching distance of his car at the time of the search.”). The search of the passenger compartment of Mr. Gant’s car was unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. Id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *11-12,

POP QUIZ # 1 -Press ENTER to continue

POP QUIZ # 1 Deputy Lawrence stops a pickup truck for running a red light. The driver, Linda Parker is the only occupant of the truck. Ms. Parker displays a driver’s license. State driver’s license records indicate that Ms. Parker’s license is suspended and that she has been served with a notice of suspension. Press ENTER to continue

POP QUIZ # 1 Deputy Lawrence promptly orders Ms. Parker to step out of her pickup truck. Ms. Parker complies. Deputy Lawrence places Ms. Parker under arrest for driving with a suspended license and handcuffs her. Deputy Lawrence searches Ms. Parker (including her body, clothing, and purse) incident to arrest and places her in the backseat of his patrol car. Press ENTER to continue

(Select the best answer.)
What should Deputy Lawrence do next? (Select the best answer.) (A) Click here ►  if you think Deputy Lawrence should transport Ms. Parker to the jail and transfer her to the custody of the jail staff. He should leave Ms. Parker’s pickup truck where she stopped it unless impounding the truck is necessary for traffic safety. (B) Click here ►  if you think Deputy Lawrence should search the passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck for contraband and other evidence of criminal activity. After the search of the passenger compartment is completed, he should transport Ms. Parker to the jail and transfer her to the custody of the jail staff. He should leave Ms. Parker’s pickup truck where she stopped it unless impounding the truck is necessary for traffic safety. (C) Click here ►  if you think Deputy Lawrence should request a tow truck to impound Ms. Parker’s pickup truck and inventory the contents of the pickup while waiting for the tow truck. After the inventory is completed and the tow truck operator has removed the pickup, he should transport Ms. Parker to the jail and transfer her to the custody of the jail staff. NOTE: (A) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 39. (B) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 44. (C) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 49.

POP QUIZ # 1 Sorry. You must selected an answer. Click here ►  to go back so you can select an answer. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 37.

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER (A) GOOD ANSWER! It is a criminal offense for Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after she has been notified of the suspension. Deputy Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and transporting her to the jail. Press ENTER to continue It is a criminal offense for Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after she has been notified of the suspension. See, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § (a) (2009). Deputy Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and transporting her to the jail.

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER However, Deputy Lawrence is not authorized to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck. Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justify a search of the passenger compartment because, at the time of the arrest, Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup. Press ENTER to continue However, Deputy Lawrence is not authorized to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck. See generally Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justify a search of the passenger compartment because, at the time of the arrest, Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup. See id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *11-12 (“[T]he scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy. If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply.”).

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER Ms. Parker could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because she could not have reached them at or after the time of her arrest. Under these circumstances, a search of the passenger compartment of the pickup incident to the arrest would be unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. Press ENTER to continue Ms. Parker could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because she could not have reached them at or after the time of her arrest. Under these circumstances, a search of the passenger compartment of the pickup incident to the arrest would be unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, * See also id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *21 (“Because police could not reasonably have believed either that Gant could have accessed his car at the time of the search or that evidence of the offense for which he was arrested might have been found therein, the search in this case was unreasonable.”).

Click here ►  to continue.
POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER Deputy Lawrence may be authorized to inventory the contents of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck if he impounds it. The decision to impound the pickup must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. Click here ►  to continue. Deputy Lawrence may be authorized to inventory the contents of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck if he impounds it. Jennifer G. Solari, The United States Supreme Court’s Ruling in Arizona v. Gant: Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, Fed. L. Enforcement Informer, May 2009, at 3, 8, available at (hereinafter Implications for Law Enforcement Officers). See also S.D. v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976) (“The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge. When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents. These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and the protection of the police from potential danger.”) (citations omitted). The decision to impound the pickup must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 53.

Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER.
Click here ►  to continue. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 53.

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER (B) SORRY, WRONG ANSWER. Deputy Lawrence is not authorized to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck. Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justify a search of the passenger compartment because, at the time of the arrest, Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup. Press ENTER to continue Deputy Lawrence is not authorized to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck. See generally Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justify a search of the passenger compartment because, at the time of the arrest, Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup. See Gant, 556 U.S. ___, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, 11-12* (“[T]he scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy. If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply.”).

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER Likewise, Ms. Parker would already have been handcuffed in the backseat of Deputy Lawrence’s patrol car at the time when the search would have been conducted. She could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because she could not have reached them at the time of her arrest or of the search. Under these circumstances, a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of the pickup would be unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. Press ENTER to continue Likewise, Ms. Parker would already have been handcuffed in the backseat of Deputy Lawrence’s patrol car at the time when the search would have been conducted. She could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because she could not have reached them at the time of her arrest or of the search. Under these circumstances, a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of the pickup would be unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, * See also id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *21 (“Because police could not reasonably have believed either that Gant could have accessed his car at the time of the search or that evidence of the offense for which he was arrested might have been found therein, the search in this case was unreasonable.”).

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER However, it is a criminal offense for Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after she has been notified of the suspension. Therefore, Deputy Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and transporting her to the jail. Press ENTER to continue However, it is a criminal offense for Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after she has been notified of the suspension. See, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § (a) (2009). Therefore, Deputy Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and transporting her to the jail.

Click here ►  to try again.
POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER Deputy Lawrence may be authorized to inventory the contents of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck if he impounds it. The decision to impound the pickup must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. Click here ►  to try again. Deputy Lawrence may be authorized to inventory the contents of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck if he impounds it. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also S.D. v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976) (“The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge. When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents. These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and the protection of the police from potential danger.”) (citations omitted). The decision to impound the pickup must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 37.

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER (C) GOOD ANSWER! It is a criminal offense for Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after she has been notified of the suspension. Deputy Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and transporting her to the jail. Press ENTER to continue It is a criminal offense for Ms. Parker to drive with a suspended license after she has been notified of the suspension. See, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § (a) (2009). Deputy Lawrence is clearly justified in arresting Ms. Parker, searching her incident to arrest, and transporting her to the jail.

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER Deputy Lawrence may be authorized to inventory the contents of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck if he impounds it. The decision to impound the pickup must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. Press ENTER to continue Deputy Lawrence may be authorized to inventory the contents of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck if he impounds it. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also S.D. v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976) (“The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge. When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents. These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and the protection of the police from potential danger.”) (citations omitted). The decision to impound the pickup must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369.

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER However, Deputy Lawrence is not authorized to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck. Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justify a search of the passenger compartment because, at the time of the arrest, Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup. Press ENTER to continue However, Deputy Lawrence is not authorized to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Ms. Parker’s pickup truck. See generally Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justify a search of the passenger compartment because, at the time of the arrest, Ms. Parker was outside of her pickup. See Gant, 556 U.S. ___, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *11-12 (“[T]he scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy. If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply.”).

POP QUIZ # 1 ANSWER Ms. Parker could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because she could not have reached them at or after the time of her arrest. Under these circumstances, a search of the passenger compartment of the pickup incident to the arrest would be unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. Click here ►  to continue. Ms. Parker could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because she could not have reached them at or after the time of her arrest. Under these circumstances, a search of the passenger compartment of the pickup incident to the arrest would be unreasonable and, therefore, unlawful. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, * See also id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *21 (“Because police could not reasonably have believed either that Gant could have accessed his car at the time of the search or that evidence of the offense for which he was arrested might have been found therein, the search in this case was unreasonable.”). NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 53.

ANOTHER TOOL… Press ENTER to continue

ANOTHER TOOL: REASONABLE BELIEF
While the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant limited some searches of vehicles incident to arrest, it also articulated the principle that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence incident to the arrest of person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” Press ENTER to continue While the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant limited some searches of vehicles incident to arrest, it also articulated the principle that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence incident to the arrest of person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *7.

“In many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence. But in others, the offense of arrest will supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.” This applies regardless of whether the arrested person could access the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Press ENTER to continue “In many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence. But in others, the offense of arrest will supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.” (citations omitted) Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *20. This applies regardless of whether the arrested person could access the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 7.

For example: in a case when a person is arrested for dealing drugs from a car, an officer may be legally authorized to search the car after the arrested person is removed because it is reasonable to believe illegal drugs will be found in the car. Drug dealing, by its very nature, involves the possession of a quantity of drugs. A drug dealer who deals from her car will tend to have a supply of drugs in her car while she is dealing. Press ENTER to continue For example: in a case when a person is arrested for dealing drugs from a car, an officer may be legally authorized to search the car after the arrested person is removed because it is reasonable to believe illegal drugs will be found in the car. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *20, Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 6-7. Drug dealing, by its very nature, involves the possession of a quantity of drugs. A drug dealer who deals from her car will tend to have a supply of drugs in her car while she is dealing.

The quality and amount of evidence necessary to make it reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle is less than probable cause. Rather, the question is “whether another reasonable officer, if confronted with the same facts and circumstances, could believe that evidence of the arrestee’s crime might be found in the vehicle the arrestee recently occupied.” Press ENTER to continue The quality and amount of evidence necessary to make it reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle is less than probable cause. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 7. Rather, the question is “whether another reasonable officer, if confronted with the same facts and circumstances, could believe that evidence of the arrestee’s crime might be found in the vehicle the arrestee recently occupied.” Id.

However, Mr. Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license as well as for an outstanding warrant (for previously driving with a suspended license). Because of the nature of the crime of driving with a suspended license, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no reason to believe that there was evidence of this crime concealed in Mr. Gant’s car. In fact, there is very rarely ever any physical evidence of the crime of driving with a suspended license. Press ENTER to continue However, Mr. Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license as well as for an outstanding warrant (for previously driving with a suspended license). See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *6-7. Because of the nature of the crime of driving with a suspended license, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no reason to believe that there was evidence of this crime concealed in Mr. Gant’s car. Id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *6-7 (“Neither the possibility of access nor the likelihood of discovering offense-related evidence authorized the search in this case.”). In fact, there is very rarely ever any physical evidence of the crime of driving with a suspended license. See id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *20 (“[W]hen a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.”).

POP QUIZ # 2 Press ENTER to continue

POP QUIZ # 2 A confidential reliable informant made a controlled drug buy under the direct supervision and observation of Detective Lock. The informant purchased about three grams of methamphetamine from Steven Page. Mr. Page sold the methamphetamine from the driver’s seat of a 2007 Honda Accord (with Florida license plate 123 ABC). The informant surrendered the methamphetamine to Detective Lock. Press ENTER to continue

POP QUIZ # 2 About 30 minutes after the controlled drug buy, Detective Lock and three uniformed police officers (in patrol cars) make a felony stop of a 2007 Honda Accord (with Florida license plate 123 ABC). Press ENTER to continue

POP QUIZ # 2 The driver of the 2007 Honda Accord (with Florida license plate 123 ABC) is ordered to exit the vehicle and to step backwards toward the patrol cars. The driver complies and is detained and handcuffed by one of the uniformed officers. The driver is the only occupant of the car. Press ENTER to continue

POP QUIZ # 2 The driver is Steven Page. Detective Lock arrests Mr. Page for possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute. One of the uniformed officers searches Mr. Page (including his body and clothing) incident to the arrest. The search reveals no methamphetamines or other evidence of criminal activity. Press ENTER to continue

POP QUIZ # 2 One of the uniformed officers places Mr. Page in the backseat of his patrol car. Several closed brown paper bags are scattered throughout the passenger compartment of the 2007 Honda Accord and are visible from outside of the vehicle. Press ENTER to continue

What should Detective Lock do next? (Select the best answer.)
(A) Click here ►  if you think Detective Lock should direct a uniformed police officer to transport Mr. Page to jail and transfer him to the custody of the jail staff. Detective Lock should leave Mr. Page’s car where he stopped it unless impounding the car is necessary for traffic safety. (B) Click here ►  if you think Detective Lock should direct a uniformed police officer to transport Mr. Page to jail and transfer him to the custody of the jail staff. Detective Lock should search the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car for methamphetamines and other evidence of the crime of possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute. (C) Click here ►  if you think Detective Lock should direct a uniformed police officer to transport Mr. Page to jail and transfer him to the custody of the jail staff. Detective Lock should request that a tow truck be dispatched to impound Mr. Page’s car. Detective Lock should inventory the contents of the car while waiting for the tow truck. NOTE: (A) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 67. (B) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 69. (C) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 76.

POP QUIZ # 2 Sorry. You must selected an answer. Click here ►  to go back so you can select an answer. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 65.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER (A) BAD IDEA. Try again… Click here ►  to try again. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 65.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER (B) GOOD ANSWER! Detective Lock is justified in arresting Mr. Page. The uniformed police officer is authorized to search Mr. Page incident to arrest and transport him to the jail. Press ENTER to continue GOOD ANSWER! Detective Lock is justified in arresting Mr. Page. See, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § (b) (2009). The uniformed police officer is authorized to search Mr. Page incident to arrest and transport him to the jail.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER Detective Lock is authorized to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest (possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute) might be found in the passenger compartment. Methamphetamine (meth) dealing, by its very nature, involves the possession of a quantity of meth. A meth dealer who deals from his car will tend to have a supply of meth in his car while he is dealing. The brown paper bags may be reasonably suspected to contain meth. Press ENTER to continue Detective Lock is authorized to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest (possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute) might be found in the passenger compartment. See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *20. Methamphetamine (meth) dealing, by its very nature, involves the possession of a quantity of meth. A meth dealer who deals from his car will tend to have a supply of meth in his car while he is dealing. The brown paper bags may be reasonably suspected to contain meth.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justifies a search of the passenger compartment because Mr. Page was arrested outside of his car. At the time when the search would have been conducted, Mr. Page would have been handcuffed and secured in the backseat of a patrol car (and probably on the way to jail). Mr. Page could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because he could not have reached them at the time of his arrest or of the search of the passenger compartment. Press ENTER to continue Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justifies a search of the passenger compartment because Mr. Page was arrested outside of his car. See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *11-12 (“[T]he scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy. If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply.”). At the time when the search would have been conducted, Mr. Page would have been handcuffed and secured in the backseat of a patrol car (and probably on the way to jail). Mr. Page could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because he could not have reached them at the time of his arrest or of the search of the passenger compartment.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER Therefore, Detective Lock must be prepared to articulate why it is reasonable to believe evidence of possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute might be found in the passenger compartment. Press ENTER to continue Therefore, Detective Lock must be prepared to articulate why it is reasonable to believe evidence of possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute might be found in the passenger compartment. See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *20-21.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER In addition, Detective Lock is authorized to search any location in the car for methamphetamines or other evidence of a crime if there is probable cause that this evidence is in the location. A warrant is not required to search a portion of a working car (or other readily mobile conveyance) if there is probable cause that the particular portion of the working car contains the contraband or other evidence of criminal activity. Press ENTER to continue In addition, Detective Lock is authorized to search any location in the car for methamphetamines or other evidence of a crime if there is probable cause that this evidence is in the location. Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925). See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 7-8. A warrant is not required to search a portion of a working car (or other readily mobile conveyance) if there is probable cause that the particular portion of the working car contains the contraband or other evidence of criminal activity. Carroll, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 7-8.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER Detective Lock may also be authorized to inventory the contents of Mr. Page’s car if she impounds it. The decision to impound the car must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. Click here ►  to continue. Detective Lock may also be authorized to inventory the contents of Mr. Page’s car if she impounds it. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also S.D. v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976) (“The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge. When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents. These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and the protection of the police from potential danger.”) (citations omitted). The decision to impound the car must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 82.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER (C) GOOD ANSWER! Detective Lock is justified in arresting Mr. Page. The uniformed police officer is authorized to search Mr. Page incident to arrest and transport him to the jail. Press ENTER to continue GOOD ANSWER! Detective Lock is justified in arresting Mr. Page. See, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § (b) (2009). The uniformed police officer is authorized to search Mr. Page incident to arrest and transport him to the jail.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER Detective Lock may be authorized to inventory the contents of Mr. Page’s car if she impounds it. The decision to impound the car must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. Press ENTER to continue Detective Lock may be authorized to inventory the contents of Mr. Page’s car if she impounds it. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also S.D. v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976) (“The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge. When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents. These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and the protection of the police from potential danger.”) (citations omitted). The decision to impound the car must be in accordance with agency policy and based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER In addition, Detective Lock is authorized to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest (possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute) might be found in the passenger compartment. Methamphetamine (meth) dealing, by its very nature, involves the possession of a quantity of meth. A meth dealer who deals from his car will tend to have a supply of meth in his car while he is dealing. The brown paper bags may be reasonably suspected to contain meth. Press ENTER to continue In addition, Detective Lock is authorized to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest (possession of methamphetamines with intent to distribute) might be found in the passenger compartment. See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *20. Methamphetamine (meth) dealing, by its very nature, involves the possession of a quantity of meth. A meth dealer who deals from his car will tend to have a supply of meth in his car while he is dealing. The brown paper bags may be reasonably suspected to contain meth.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justifies a search of the passenger compartment because Mr. Page was arrested outside of his car. At the time when the search would have been conducted, Mr. Page would have been handcuffed and secured in the backseat of a patrol car (and probably on the way to jail). Mr. Page could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because he could not have reached them at the time of his arrest or of the search of the passenger compartment. Press ENTER to continue Neither officer safety nor evidence preservation justifies a search of the passenger compartment because Mr. Page was arrested outside of his car. See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *11-12 (“[T]he scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy. If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply.”). At the time when the search would have been conducted, Mr. Page would have been handcuffed and secured in the backseat of a patrol car (and probably on the way to jail). Mr. Page could not have used weapons or escape tools or destroyed evidence in the passenger compartment because he could not have reached them at the time of his arrest or of the search of the passenger compartment.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER Therefore, Detective Lock must be prepared to articulate why it is reasonable to believe evidence of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute might be found in the passenger compartment if she chooses to search the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car incident to his arrest. Press ENTER to continue Therefore, Detective Lock must be prepared to articulate why it is reasonable to believe evidence of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute might be found in the passenger compartment if she chooses to search the passenger compartment of Mr. Page’s car incident to his arrest. See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *20-21.

POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER Detective Lock is also authorized to search any location in the car for methamphetamine or other evidence of a crime if there is probable cause that this evidence is in the location. A warrant is not required to search a portion of a working car (or other readily mobile conveyance) if there is probable cause that the particular portion of the working car contains the contraband or other evidence of criminal activity. Click here ►  to continue. In addition, Detective Lock is authorized to search any location in the car for methamphetamine or other evidence of a crime if there is probable cause that this evidence is in the location. Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925). See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 7-8. A warrant is not required to search a portion of a working car (or other readily mobile conveyance) if there is probable cause that the particular portion of the working car contains the contraband or other evidence of criminal activity. Carroll, 267 U.S See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 7-8. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 82.

REVIEW Press ENTER to continue

REVIEW: AN OFFICER’S TOOLS
Lower courts and individuals have widely misunderstood the law as allowing a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there is no possibility that the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search. Press ENTER to continue Lower courts and individuals have widely misunderstood the law as “allow[ing] a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there is no possibility [that] the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, * See also id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *30-32.

REVIEW: AN OFFICER’S TOOLS
In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court clarified the law. The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer is authorized to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle for two separate causes: (1) weapon (and escape tool) detection and evidence preservation or (2) reasonable belief that evidence may be found. Press ENTER to continue In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court clarified the law. The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer is authorized to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle for two separate causes: (1) weapon (and escape tool) detection and evidence preservation or (2) reasonable belief that evidence may be found. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *11-12 (““[A] search incident to arrest may only include ‘the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’—construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.’ That limitation, which continues to define the boundaries of the exception, ensures that the scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy.”) (citation omitted); Id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *20 (“[C]ircumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’”).

CAUSE ONE: WEAPON DETECTION AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
Press ENTER to continue A law enforcement officer is justified in searching the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person- IF -the arrested person is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle- AND IF -the arrested person could access the passenger compartment of a vehicle (at the time of the search)- OR (1) -obtain a weapon or escape tool- OR (2) -destroy evidence of a crime. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *11-12.

CAUSE ONE: WEAPON DETECTION AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
However, an officer cannot search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle when the arrested person is unable to physically access the passenger compartment unless the officer has another justification. Press ENTER to continue However, an officer cannot search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle when the arrested person is unable to physically access the passenger compartment unless the officer has another justification. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *12 ( “[S]earches incident to arrest are reasonable ‘in order to remove any weapons [the arrestee] might seek to use” and “in order to prevent [the] concealment or destruction’ of evidence If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply.”).

CAUSE TWO: REASONABLE BELIEF
Press ENTER to continue A law enforcement officer is justified in searching the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person- IF -the arrested person is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle- AND IF -it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to a crime that was a ground for the arrest might be found in the vehicle. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *20.

CAUSE TWO: REASONABLE BELIEF
In searches justified by reasonable belief, the evidence must relate to a crime that was a ground for the arrest, not just any crime. The “reasonable officer” standard applies to determinations whether it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to a crime that was a ground for the arrest might be found in the vehicle. Press ENTER to continue In searches justified by reasonable belief, the evidence must relate to a crime that was a ground for the arrest, not just any crime. Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *20; Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 6-7 The “reasonable officer” standard applies to determinations whether it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to a crime that was a ground for the arrest might be found in the vehicle. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 7.

MOST THINGS DIDN’T CHANGE
Arizona v. Gant addresses searches of the passenger compartments of vehicles incident to the arrest of persons who are occupants or recent occupants of the vehicles. However, it does not affect other types of searches. Press ENTER to continue Arizona v. Gant addresses searches of the passenger compartments of vehicles incident to the arrest of persons who are occupants or recent occupants of the vehicles. See generally Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS However, it does not affect other types of searches. See Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also Gant, 556 U.S. ___ , 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at 25-26*

SEARCHES OF ARRESTED PERSONS A law enforcement officer has the authority to search the body and the clothing of the arrested person incident to the arrest. Searches of containers on the arrested person’s body incident to the arrest are also authorized. This search is justified by both officer safety and evidence preservation: “A custodial arrest supported by probable cause is sufficient justification.” Press ENTER to continue A law enforcement officer has the authority to search the body and the clothing of the arrested person incident to the arrest. Chimel v. Cal., 395 U.S. 752, (1969) (“When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer's safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.”). See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 4-5. Searches of containers on the arrested person’s body incident to the arrest are also authorized. U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, (1973). See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 5. This search is justified by both officer safety and evidence preservation: “A custodial arrest supported by probable cause is sufficient justification.” Chimel, 395 U.S. at ; Robinson, 414 U.S. at Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 5, summarizing N.Y. v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 461 (1981) (“‘The authority to search the person incident to a lawful custodial arrest, while based upon the need to disarm and to discover evidence, does not depend on what a court may later decide was the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would in fact be found upon the person of the suspect. A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.’”).

WARRANTLESS VEHICLE SEARCHES The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Carroll established that a law enforcement officer may search a working motor vehicle (or other readily mobile conveyance) without a warrant if there is probable cause that it contains evidence of a crime or contraband. Arizona v. Gant does not alter this principle. Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Carroll established that a law enforcement officer may search a working motor vehicle (or other readily mobile conveyance) without a warrant if there is probable cause that it contains evidence of a crime or contraband. Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925). See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 7-8. Arizona v. Gant does not alter this principle. See Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8.

PROTECTIVE SWEEPS In Maryland v. Buie, the Supreme Court held that, incident to an arrest in a private home, a law enforcement officer is, upon reasonable suspicion, authorized to conduct a protective sweep to detect persons who may be in hiding and pose a threat to the officer. A protective sweep is a quick inspection. The purpose of a protective sweep is officer safety: it is intended to prevent surprise attacks. Officers may, likewise, conduct protective sweeps of vehicles incident to arrest. Press ENTER to continue In Maryland v. Buie, the Supreme Court held that, incident to an arrest in a private home, a law enforcement officer is, upon reasonable suspicion, authorized to conduct a protective sweep to detect persons who may be in hiding and pose a threat to the officer. Md. v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990). A protective sweep is a quick inspection. Id. The purpose of a protective sweep is officer safety: it is intended to prevent surprise attacks. Id. Officers may, likewise, conduct protective sweeps of vehicles incident to arrest. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8.

“TERRY” FRISKS OF VEHICLES The Supreme Court also held “that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.” Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court also held “that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.” Mich. v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983).

“TERRY” FRISKS OF VEHICLES Probable cause is not required to search a passenger compartment for weapons. “If a suspect is ‘dangerous,’ he [or she] is no less dangerous simply because he [or she] is not arrested.” Press ENTER to continue Probable cause is not required to search a passenger compartment for weapons. Mich. v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983). (“[B]elief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts . . .” is required.). “If a suspect is ‘dangerous,’ he [or she] is no less dangerous simply because he [or she] is not arrested.” Id. at 1050

VEHICLE INVENTORIES A law enforcement officer who impounds a vehicle may inventory its contents. The decision to impound must be based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause and must be in accordance with agency policy. Contraband and other evidence that is discovered during a lawful inventory may be seized and used in a criminal prosecution. Press ENTER to continue A law enforcement officer who impounds a vehicle may inventory its contents. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. See also S.D. v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976) (“The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge. When vehicles are impounded, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles' contents. These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and the protection of the police from potential danger.”) (citations omitted). The decision to impound must be based on traffic safety or crime prevention considerations or another reasonable cause and must be in accordance with agency policy. Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369; Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8. Contraband and other evidence that is discovered during a lawful inventory may be seized and used in a criminal prosecution. Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 8.

BELTS AND SUSPENDERS Whenever an officer conducts a search of a vehicle incident to an arrest, it is wise to be prepared to articulate multiple justifications for the search. Even if a court concludes that one justification is insufficient, another justification for the same search may be acceptable. Press ENTER to continue

BELTS AND SUSPENDERS However, law enforcement officers must be HONEST in their statements to courts. Under no circumstances should officers give false information to courts or judges to justify searches. ULTIMATELY, HONOR AND INTEGRITY ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT MATTER! Press ENTER to continue

FINAL QUIZ Press ENTER to continue

FINAL QUIZ: QUESTION # 1 True or False: A law enforcement officer always has the authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person if, at the time of the arrest, the person is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle. (A) Click here ►  if you think the statement is true. (B) Click here ►  if you think the statement is false. NOTE: (A) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 101. (B) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 105.

FINAL QUIZ: QUESTION # 1 Sorry. You must selected an answer. Click here ►  to go back so you can select an answer. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 99.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 1 (A) SORRY, WRONG ANSWER. (The statement is false.) The authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person who (at the time of the arrest) is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle is not absolute. It depends on the circumstances. Press ENTER to continue The authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person who (at the time of the arrest) is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle is not absolute. See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, * It depends on the circumstances.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 1 There must be a genuine officer safety or evidence preservation justification or it must be “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” An officer who searches the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person must be able to articulate the factors that justify the search. Press ENTER to continue There must be a genuine officer safety or evidence preservation justification or it must be “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, * An officer who searches the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person must be able to articulate the factors that justify the search.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 1 However, an officer clearly has the authority to search a person incident to arrest (including his or her body and clothing and containers on his or her body and clothing). “A custodial arrest supported by probable cause is sufficient justification.” Click here ►  to try again. However, an officer clearly has the authority to search a person incident to arrest (including his or her body and clothing and containers on his or her body and clothing). Chimel v. Cal., 395 U.S. 752, (1969) (“When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer's safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.”). U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, (1973). See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 5. “A custodial arrest supported by probable cause is sufficient justification.” Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 5, summarizing N.Y. v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 461 (1981) (“‘The authority to search the person incident to a lawful custodial arrest, while based upon the need to disarm and to discover evidence, does not depend on what a court may later decide was the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would in fact be found upon the person of the suspect. A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.’”). NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 99.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 1 (B) CORRECT! (The statement is false.) The authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person who (at the time of the arrest) is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle is not absolute. It depends on the circumstances. Press ENTER to continue The authority to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person who (at the time of the arrest) is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle is not absolute. See Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, * It depends on the circumstances.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 1 There must be a genuine officer safety or evidence preservation justification or it must be “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” An officer who searches the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person must be able to articulate the factors that justify the search. Press ENTER to continue There must be a genuine officer safety or evidence preservation justification or it must be “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, * An officer who searches the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a person must be able to articulate the factors that justify the search.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 1 However, an officer clearly has the authority to search a person incident to arrest (including his or her body and clothing and containers on his or her body and clothing). “A custodial arrest supported by probable cause is sufficient justification.” Click here ►  to continue. However, an officer clearly has the authority to search a person incident to arrest (including his or her body and clothing and containers on his or her body and clothing). Chimel v. Cal., 395 U.S. 752, (1969) (“When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer's safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.”). U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, (1973). See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 5. “A custodial arrest supported by probable cause is sufficient justification.” Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 5, summarizing N.Y. v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 461 (1981) (“‘The authority to search the person incident to a lawful custodial arrest, while based upon the need to disarm and to discover evidence, does not depend on what a court may later decide was the probability in a particular arrest situation that weapons or evidence would in fact be found upon the person of the suspect. A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.’”). NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 108.

FINAL QUIZ: QUESTION # 2 True or False: A law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence (incident to the arrest of a person who is an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle) when it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to a crime that was a cause for the arrest might be found in the vehicle. (A) Click here ►  if you think the statement is true. (B) Click here ►  if you think the statement is false. NOTE: (A) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 110. (B) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 112.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 2 (A) CORRECT! (The statement is true.) In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle (incident to arrest) for evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” This principle applies to the passenger compartment of a vehicle that is occupied or was recently occupied by a person who is arrested. Click here ►  to continue. In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle (incident to arrest) for evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *20. This principle applies to the passenger compartment of a vehicle that is occupied or was recently occupied by a person who is arrested. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ , 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *20. See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 7-8. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 114.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 2 (B) SORRY, WRONG ANSWER. (The statement is true.) In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle (incident to arrest) for evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” This principle applies to the passenger compartment of a vehicle that is occupied or was recently occupied by a person who is arrested. Click here ►  to try again. In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle (incident to arrest) for evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *20. This principle applies to the passenger compartment of a vehicle that is occupied or was recently occupied by a person who is arrested. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ , 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *20. See also Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, at 3, 7-8. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 108.

FINAL QUIZ: QUESTION # 3 True or False: If a law enforcement officer arrests a person for a crime and, at the time of the arrest, the person is an occupant or recent occupant of a vehicle, the Supreme Court ruled that it is always reasonable to believe evidence relevant to a crime that was a cause for the arrest will be found in the passenger compartment of the vehicle. (A) Click here ►  if you think the statement is true. (B) Click here ►  if you think the statement is false. NOTE: (A) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 116. (B) Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 119.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 3 (A) SORRY, WRONG ANSWER. (The statement is false.) The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *7, 20.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 3 However, the court also observed that “in many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.” In other cases, an offense that was a cause for the arrest “will also supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.” Click here ►  to try again. However, the court also observed that “[i]n many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *7, 20 In other cases, an offense that was a cause for the arrest “will [also] supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.” Id. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 114.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 3 (B) CORRECT! (The statement is false.) The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” Press ENTER to continue The Supreme Court ruled that a law enforcement officer may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for evidence when “it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *7, 20.

FINAL QUIZ: ANSWER # 3 The court also observed that “in many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.” In other cases, an offense that was a cause for the arrest “will also supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.” Click here ►  to continue. The court also observed that “[i]n many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.” Ariz. v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120, *7, 20 In other cases, an offense that was a cause for the arrest “will [also] supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee’s vehicle and any containers therein.” Id. NOTE: Click here ►  is hyperlinked to slide 121.

Congratulations on completing the Arizona v. Gant Self-Study Course!
Press ENTER to continue

The author consulted many sources while developing this course. However, it would be a gross injustice not to give particular credit to the memorandum The United States Supreme Court’s Ruling in Arizona v. Gant: Implications for Law Enforcement Officers by Ms. Jennifer G. Solari (of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Legal Division). Without this valuable resource, preparing this course would have been much more difficult. The author consulted many sources while developing this course. However, it would be a gross injustice not to give particular credit to the memorandum The United States Supreme Court’s Ruling in Arizona v. Gant: Implications for Law Enforcement Officers by Ms. Jennifer G. Solari (of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Legal Division). Implications for Law Enforcement Officers, available at . Press ENTER to continue

Arizona v. Gant clarified the limits of the authority of officers to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles. The decision is a major development in search and seizure law. It is essential that law enforcement officers be familiar with this case. Thank you for your time and attention! Please direct any comments or suggestions to NOTE: hyperlinks to address Press ENTER to continue

ARIZONA V. GANT -If you are viewing this presentation on a Windows PC, press F5 to begin. -If you are viewing this presentation on a Mac, simultaneously.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "ARIZONA V. GANT -If you are viewing this presentation on a Windows PC, press F5 to begin. -If you are viewing this presentation on a Mac, simultaneously."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

ARIZONA V. GANT -If you are viewing this presentation on a Windows PC, press F5 to begin. -If you are viewing this presentation on a Mac, simultaneously.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "ARIZONA V. GANT -If you are viewing this presentation on a Windows PC, press F5 to begin. -If you are viewing this presentation on a Mac, simultaneously."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback