Arizona v. Gant (556 U.S. 332, April 21 2009) sharply limits warrantless vehicle searches incident to arrest. Officers may search only when the arrestee can access the vehicle at the time or when it is reasonable to believe evidence of the crime of arrest is inside. This case reinforces protocol, clarifies Fourth Amendment boundaries, and guides officers to avoid overreaching.
Background of Arizona v. Gant
Rodney Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license after exiting his vehicle. He was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car, fully secured. Police then searched his car and found a firearm and cocaine in a jacket’s pocket.
Gant moved to suppress the evidence; the Arizona Supreme Court ultimately ruled the search was unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.
Supreme Court Ruling
Belton no longer allows automatic searches. The bright-line rule from New York v. Belton does not justify searching a vehicle once the arrestee is secured and cannot access it.
New limits were established. Officers may search a vehicle incident to arrest only if:
- The arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance, or
- It is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the crime of arrest.
The Court noted these conditions preserve the Chimel rationale: officer safety and evidence protection.
Practical Guidance for Field Officers
When a search of the vehicle is allowed:
- When the arrestee can physically access the vehicle.
- Evidence of the crime is likely inside (e.g. drug arrest may justify search of passenger area).
When a search of the vehicle is not allowed:
- Arrestee is secure and out of reach.
- Arrest is for a crime unrelated to vehicle contents (e.g. suspended license), and no evidence link exists.
Alternative search methods remain valid:
- Probable-cause search under Carroll (mobile vehicle) exception
- Protective sweep if danger is suspected. In this context it would apply to a motorhome
- Consent
- Inventory search post-impound, following agency policy
Warrantless searches can be tricky; they are narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement. They should considered with the same seriousness and justification as if you were seeking a warrant. They are also easy to get wrong which is why so much case law addresses them. In State v. Speights, 2021 UT 56, 497 P.3d 340 (Utah 2021), officers touched the exterior of a vehicle’s engine compartment during a DUI. Feeling the heat of the engine and using that observation as evidence that Speights was driving came under fire as an unlawful search.
Reasonable-Belief vs. Probable Cause
The Court used “reasonable to believe,” which is not explicitly equal to probable cause. Field officers must assess if a reasonable officer could conclude evidence is in the vehicle based on things like recent theft, drug activity, impaired driving, the behavior or statements made by suspect, or ownership/control of vehicle
With WarrantBuilder.com, you can streamline and simplify the process of creating search warrants. The user-friendly interface and expertly crafted warrant formats make the task easy for both seasoned investigators and new warrant writers alike. Sign up for a free trial today and discover the best way to write warrants.
