§ 12.05 Searches of Automobiles Incident to Arrest

• Jurisdiction: United States

§ 12.05 Searches of Automobiles Incident to Arrest⁶²

[A] New York v. Belton

The Supreme Court's approach to searches of automobiles incident to arrest has resulted in controversy and, as a result, change in constitutional interpretation in recent years. The starting point to understanding this aspect of SILA law is New York v. Belton,⁶³ in which the Court generated a supposed⁶⁴ bright-line rule for automobiles: In all cases, an officer may conduct a contemporaneous warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle, including all containers therein, incident to a lawful custodial arrest of the occupants.⁶⁵

It is almost impossible to rationalize Belton in light of Chimel, and particularly perplexing is the fact that Justice Stewart wrote both opinions. As discussed earlier, Chimel was based on the principle that, in view of the constitutional importance of warrants, the scope of a search should be "strictly tied" to the circumstances that render the warrantless action permissible. In Belton, however, the bright-line rule seemingly permits the police to dispense with the warrant requirement in many cases in which no genuine exigency exists.⁶⁶

Even if bright-line rules are desirable, a matter of considerable dispute,⁶⁷ a strong case can be made that Belton is not the proper bright-line rule. Such rules ought to produce results fairly similar to those that would occur by case-by-case adjudication.⁶⁸It is implausible to believe now — and should have been implausible even when Belton was decided — that in the majority of cases in which a car occupant is arrested, the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle is in the arrestee's grabbing area after he is removed from the vehicle, when the search occurs.⁶⁹ Most police training manuals instruct that when a car occupant is arrested, he should be removed from the vehicle, handcuffed, and placed in the police car before any car search occurs. Therefore, if a bright-line rule is desired, it would be closer to reality to declare that the interior of a vehicle is never in the arrestee's immediate control once he is removed from it or, at least, once he is placed in the police car.

As will be seen, these weaknesses in Belton, expressed by scholars, the many state courts that refused to follow Belton,⁷⁰ and of course the dissenters in Belton itself, would cause the Supreme Court to reconsider and narrow Belton.

[B] The Change Comes: Arizona v. Gant

In 2009, as a result of Arizona v. Gant,⁷¹ the Belton "bright-line" rule became less bright, narrower, and arguably more consistent with the Fourth Amendment principles underlying Chimel v. California.⁷² As Justice Stevens, writing for the five-justice majority, candidly put it, "[t]he chorus that has called for us to revisit Belton includes courts, scholars, and Members of this Court who have questioned that decision's clarity and its fidelity to Fourth Amendment principles. We therefore granted the State's petition for certiorari."

In Gant, G parked his car in a driveway and exited his vehicle. He then was lawfully arrested (based on prior information) for driving on a suspended license. The officers handcuffed G and locked him in a patrol car, after which they searched his car and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket in the backseat. Thus, the scope of the search was uncontroversial — the drugs were found in a container in the passenger compartment of the car. And G was a "recent occupant" of the vehicle. G argued, however, that the Belton rule did not apply because "he posed no threat to the officers after he was handcuffed in the patrol car and because he was arrested for a traffic offense for which no evidence could be found in the vehicle."

The trial judge denied the...