Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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:

1 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.

2 ARIZONA V. GANT SELF-STUDY COURSE CPL. K. S. BUCK FULTON COUNTY MARSHAL’S DEPARTMENT Press ENTER to continue

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

4 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

5 A STORY… Press ENTER to continue

6 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

7 ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST 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

8 ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST 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

9 ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST 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

10 ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST 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

11 ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST 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

12 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

13 THE QUESTION… -Press ENTER to continue

14 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

15 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… If you think that Officer Griffin was correct… click here ►  click here ►  If you think that Officer Griffin was incorrect… If you think that Officer Griffin was incorrect… click here ►  click here ► 

16 THE QUESTION Sorry. You must selected an answer. Click here ►  to go back so you can select an answer. Click here ► Click here ► 

17 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

18 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

19 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

20 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

21 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

22 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

23 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

24 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

25 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

26 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

27 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

28 THE ANSWER… -Press ENTER to continue

29 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

30 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

31 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

32 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

33 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

34 POP QUIZ # 1 -Press ENTER to continue

35 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

36 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

37 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. Click here ► Click here ►  (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. Click here ► Click here ►  (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. Click here ► Click here ► 

38 POP QUIZ # 1 Sorry. You must selected an answer. Click here ►  to go back so you can select an answer. Click here ► Click here ► 

39 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

40 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

41 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

42 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 ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

43 Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Click here ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

44 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

45 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

46 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

47 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 ►  Click here ►  to try again. Click here ► 

48 Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Click here ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

49 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

50 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

51 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

52 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 ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

53 ANOTHER TOOL… Press ENTER to continue

54 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

55 ANOTHER TOOL: REASONABLE BELIEF “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

56 ANOTHER TOOL: REASONABLE BELIEF 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

57 ANOTHER TOOL: REASONABLE BELIEF 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

58 ANOTHER TOOL: REASONABLE BELIEF 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

59 POP QUIZ # 2 Press ENTER to continue

60 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

61 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

62 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

63 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

64 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

65 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. Click here ► Click here ►  (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. Click here ► Click here ►  (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. Click here ► Click here ► 

66 POP QUIZ # 2 Sorry. You must selected an answer. Click here ►  to go back so you can select an answer. Click here ► Click here ► 

67 POP QUIZ # 2 ANSWER (A)BAD IDEA. Try again… Click here ►  Click here ►  to try again. Click here ► 

68 Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Click here ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

69 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

70 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

71 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

72 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

73 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

74 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 ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

75 Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Click here ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

76 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

77 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

78 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

79 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

80 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

81 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 ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

82 REVIEW Press ENTER to continue

83 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

84 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

85 CAUSE ONE: WEAPON DETECTION AND EVIDENCE PRESERVATION Press ENTER to continue

86 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

87 CAUSE TWO: REASONABLE BELIEF CAUSE TWO: REASONABLE BELIEF Press ENTER to continue

88 CAUSE TWO: REASONABLE BELIEF 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

89 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

90 MOST THINGS DIDN’T CHANGE 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

91 MOST THINGS DIDN’T CHANGE 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

92 MOST THINGS DIDN’T CHANGE 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

93 MOST THINGS DIDN’T CHANGE “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

94 MOST THINGS DIDN’T CHANGE “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

95 MOST THINGS DIDN’T CHANGE 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

96 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

97 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

98 FINAL QUIZ Press ENTER to continue

99 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. Click here ► Click here ►  (B)Click here ►  if you think the statement is false. Click here ► Click here ► 

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

101 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

102 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

103 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 ►  Click here ►  to try again. Click here ► 

104 Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Click here ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

105 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

106 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

107 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 ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

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. Click here ► Click here ►  (B)Click here ►  if you think the statement is false. Click here ► Click here ► 

109 FINAL QUIZ: QUESTION # 2 Sorry. You must selected an answer. Click here ►  to go back so you can select an answer. Click here ► Click here ► 

110 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 ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

111 Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Click here ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

112 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 ►  Click here ►  to try again. Click here ► 

113 Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Click here ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

114 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. Click here ► Click here ►  (B)Click here ►  if you think the statement is false. Click here ► Click here ► 

115 FINAL QUIZ: QUESTION # 3 Sorry. You must selected an answer. Click here ►  to go back so you can select an answer. Click here ►  Click here ► 

116 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

117 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 ►  Click here ►  to try again. Click here ► 

118 Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Please read and follow the instructions: don’t just press ENTER. Click here ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

119 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

120 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 ►  Click here ►  to continue. Click here ► 

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

122 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. Press ENTER to continue

123 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 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 Press ENTER to continue


Download ppt "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


Ads by Google