{"id":36314,"date":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","date_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/uncategorized\/arizona-case-could-signal-change-in-fourth-amendment-law.html"},"modified":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","modified_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","slug":"arizona-case-could-signal-change-in-fourth-amendment-law","status":"publish","type":"corporate","link":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/litigation-disputes\/arizona-case-could-signal-change-in-fourth-amendment-law.html","title":{"rendered":"Arizona Case Could Signal Change in Fourth Amendment Law"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

This article was edited and reviewed by FindLaw Attorney Writers<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n | Last reviewed\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

Article provided by William Foreman, P.C. Please visit our Web site at<\/em> www.williamforemanpc.net<\/a>.<\/p>

"No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."<\/p><\/blockquote>

So reads Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona constitution — Arizona's answer to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. In a long history of cases, Arizona courts have established that this provision of Arizona's constitution may, in fact, grant broader protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government than the Fourth Amendment, especially concerning warrantless entry and search of a person's home. Perhaps it is fitting, then, that in October of 2008 the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Arizona v. Gant<\/em>, a relatively local case that could have national consequences.<\/p>

A Brief History of Search and Seizure Law<\/strong><\/p>

To understand the possible impact of the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling in Gant<\/em>, a little background on the development of search and seizure law may be warranted. The Fourth Amendment — and Article 2, Section 8 of Arizona's constitution — protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The first question that courts had to answer, then, is this: What is unreasonable?<\/p>

In United States v. Katz<\/em>, the Supreme Court determined that, with only a few exceptions, searches without a warrant were always unreasonable. One of the earliest such exceptions to this "bright line" rule was announced in 1914, when the Supreme Court stated that a warrant was not required for a search incident to an arrest. While this exception may seem cut-and-dried, for almost 100 years courts have struggled to precisely define what, exactly, constitutes a "search incident to arrest."<\/p>

In Chimel v. California<\/em>, the Supreme Court focused on "twin rationales" for allowing the search of an arrestee and anything in the arrestee's immediate vicinity, reasoning that such a search served to 1) protect the arresting officers and 2) prevent the destruction of evidence.<\/p>

Later, however, in Belton v. New York<\/em>, the Supreme Court allowed a search incident to arrest even when the "twin rationales" did not seem to apply. In Belton<\/em>, the police conducted a search of the passenger compartment of the arrestee's vehicle after the occupants had exited the vehicle. Belton argued that the passenger compartment was no longer in his immediate vicinity — defined by courts as the "grab space" — when the search took place. The court reasoned that the need for a "bright line" rule was paramount, so arresting officers would not be in the position of making split-second decisions on the intricacies of the Fourth Amendment when they were potentially in danger. They ruled that, incident to an arrest, the passenger compartment of a vehicle could be searched without a warrant if the search was "contemporaneous" with the arrest, regardless of where the arrestee was physically in or near the vehicle at the time. In 2004, the Supreme Court extended Belton<\/em> to all recent occupants of a vehicle, rather than just the arrestee.<\/p>

The Case of Arizona v. Gant<\/em><\/strong><\/p>

On August 25, 1999, two uniformed police officers approached a residence on a tip of narcotics activity. Answering the door, Rodney Gant informed the officers that the owners of the residence were not home. As a matter of course the officers, after leaving the residence, ran a records check on Gant. The check revealed an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license.<\/p>

Later that day, the officers returned to the residence to continue their narcotics investigation. While there, Gant returned in his vehicle, which he parked and exited.  Gant was arrested after exiting his car, handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. Following the arrest, an officer searched the passenger compartment of the car and found drugs and a firearm. At least four police officers were present during the search and no other persons were around — in fact, an officer testified that the scene was "secure” at all times during the search.<\/p>

At trial, Gant argued that the twin rationales of Chimel<\/em> didn't apply, since the arresting officers weren't reasonably in danger and the items in the interior of his car were not within his "grab space." The trial court dismissed Gant's arguments for suppression of the evidence found, however, and as a result he was convicted. After appeal, Gant's conviction was overturned by a court of appeals. This ruling was later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court, which reasoned that since the search did not meet the standards set forth in Chimel<\/em>, it violated his constitutional rights. More interestingly, the court also ruled that Belton<\/em> — which, as stated above, seemed to undercut the Chimel<\/em> standard — only applied to the "scope" of an allowable search, not whether the search was constitutional at all.<\/p>

What could this decision in Arizona v. Gant<\/em> mean? Since Chimel<\/em>, the trend in Fourth Amendment law has been to increasingly give more power to police to perform warrantless searches, not less. Even so, the "bright line" rule announced in Belton<\/em> has drawn much criticism, as many think it strays too far from the rationale for allowing a warrantless search incident to arrest in the first place. Although the Supreme Court has not yet issued it's ruling in Gant<\/em>, many of those who watch the court closely believe that it could side with the Gant<\/em>. If that happens, this would announce a sharp turn from the expansion of police powers, and would shore up the protections provided citizens by the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Article provided by William Foreman, P.C. Please visit our Web site at www.williamforemanpc.net. “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” So reads Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":true,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"corporate_categories":[6529,6520,6530],"class_list":["post-36314","corporate","type-corporate","status-publish","hentry","corporate_categories-litigation-disputes__criminal-litigation","corporate_categories-litigation-disputes","corporate_categories-litigation-disputes__criminal-litigation__other-business-crime"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate\/36314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/corporate"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"corporate_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate_categories?post=36314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}