The U.S. Supreme Court gets it right in Arizona v. Gant: justifications for rules protect constitutional rights.

• Author: Grey, Shenequa L.

"'Ratio legis est anima legis, et mutata legis ratione, matatur et lex'- [R]eason is the soul of the law; the reason of the law being changed, the law also is changed." (1)

1. INTRODUCTION II. ARIZONA V. GANT: An Overview III. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT A. Justification for the Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest Exception-General B. Justification for the Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest--Vehicle C. Additional Authority for Search of Vehicle Under Exception D. Clear Reasons for the Rule--Designed to Protect Constitutional Rights IV. EXPANSION OF THE RULE IS NOT SUPPORTED UNDER THE LAW A. A Broad Reading of Belton Does Not Warrant Expansion of the Rule B. Stare Decisis Does not Warrant Expansion of the Rule C. Expansion of the Rule is Not Needed to Protect Law Enforcement and Evidentiary Interests--Justification on Other Basis D. Balancing Police Interests Against Individual Rights Does Not Warrant Expansion of the Rule V. THE LAW AS APPLIED IN ARIZONA V. GANT A. Analysis under the Weapons and Evidence Justification (Chimel/Belton) B. Analysis under the Evidence of Crime Justification (Thornton) C. Evidence Correctly Excluded in Gant VI. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR RULES PROTECT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS A. Hudson v. Michigan: A "Case" in Point 1. Deterring Police Misconduct--the Underlying Justification 2. Compliance with the Purpose is Essential to Constitutionality B. Underlying Justifications: Other Examples VII. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION

   In Arizona v. Gant, (3) the United States Supreme Court revisited the search of an arrestee's vehicle pursuant to the "search incident to a lawful arrest" exception (4) to the warrant requirement (5) of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Court held "[p]olice may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search[,] or [if] it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest." (6) The Court held these searches were unconstitutional if the suspect has been removed from the proximity of the vehicle where he would be unable to access a weapon or evidence, or if an officer could not reasonably believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the crime "unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies." (7) The decision revisits and redefines the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest exception, and to the warrant requirement as it relates to vehicles, which was first applied to the arrest of persons in general, (8) and later analyzed in situations where the arrestee is a recent occupant of a vehicle. (9)

   In reaching this decision, the Court in Gant primarily relied on three prior decisions: (10) Chimel v. California, (11) New York v. Belton, (12) and Thornton v. United States. (13) In Chimel, the United States Supreme Court held that the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest extended to the area within the arrestee's "immediate control" (14) and "from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence." (15) In Belton, the Court analyzed the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest when the suspect is a recent occupant of a vehicle at the time of arrest. (16) This case authorized police to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle upon the justification that the passenger compartment was the area from within which an arrested suspect may be able to obtain a weapon to use against the arresting officers, or to conceal or destroy evidence of the crime. (17) In Thornton, the United States Supreme Court further allowed police to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle in "cases where it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle." (18)

   Based on these decisions, the Court in Gant held that following the arrest of a recent occupant of a vehicle, police could search the passenger compartment of an arrestee's vehicle only if: "[1] the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search[; or [2] if] it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest." (19) This decision was clearly based on evidentiary and safety concerns as outlined in Chimel, Belton, and Thornton. (20) In recent years, however, viewing Belton as providing a "bright line rule," (21) the Courts have expanded upon the original justifications articulated in Chimel and Belton and have allowed automatic searches of an arrestee's vehicle following all arrests. (22) In other words, law enforcement have begun to routinely search an arrestee's vehicle pursuant to this exception even when the suspect was no longer within reach of the vehicle, and in some instances, where the suspect had been handcuffed and placed in the patrol car, (23) or "even when the squad car carrying the handcuffed arrestee [had] already left the scene." (24) Not only has this practice been widely "taught in police academies," (25) but many lower courts have upheld the practice, treating "the ability to search a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent occupant as a police entitlement rather than as an exception justified by the twin rationales of Chimel." (26)

   In Gant, however, the United States Supreme Court reverted back to the original justification of the rule limiting such authority and held the search of a suspect's vehicle unconstitutional when the suspect can no longer access the vehicle to conceal or destroy weapons or if an officer could not reasonably believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. (27) In doing so, the Court rejected the notion that the practice of automatic searches of vehicles incident to a lawful arrest should be upheld based on a broad reading of Belton effectively authorizing such searches. (28) The Court also refused to uphold the searches under the theory of stare decisis (29) and further noted the searches should not be upheld by balancing a reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles against the need for a bright line rule. (30) Instead, the Court held true to the original justification of the rule as authorized in Chimel (31) and later applied in Belton (32)--access to weapons or evidence. (33)

   The search incident to a lawful arrest exception is only one of several exceptions (34) and numerous other principles (35) established by the Court upon specific justifications. For instance, the Terry "stop and frisk," (36) the frisk of the vehicle, (37) and the protective sweep (38) are all justified on officer safety principles. The inventory search (39) is based on protection of individual's property and to protect police from accusations of theft. (40) In each case, the principles were established based upon some underlying justification warranting dispensing with the constitutional requirement of a warrant supported by probable cause. (41) This decision seems to be a part of a recent trend of the United States Supreme Court to hold true to those original justifications of rules in deciding new cases before the Court, and to revert back to those justifications when its decisions have diverted from the justifications.

   This trend was recently demonstrated in Hudson v. Michigan, (42) where the Court reexamined the purpose and justification of the "exclusionary rule" (43) to conclude that it did not require the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the "knock and announce" (44) rule. (45) In overruling decades of precedent excluding such evidence, (46) the Court concluded that exclusion was inappropriate because it did not further the purpose and goal of the exclusionary rule. (47) The decision, like Gant, overruled decades of precedent (48) and adhered to the original justification of the exclusionary rule. (49)

   The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how the justifications or rationales for legal principles form the basis for compliance with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and that therefore, failure to comply with those justifications leads to unconstitutional searches and seizures. (50) Strict compliance with the underlying justifications prevents the courts from circumventing the Constitution by establishing a rule, then expanding it beyond its intended purpose. (51) This article demonstrates and reiterates that compliance with the underlying justifications for establishing rules is essential to protecting individual constitutional rights. (52)

   In addressing these issues, Part I of this article gives an overview of Arizona v. Gant, setting forth the facts of the case and the issues presented before the Court relative to the search incident to a lawful arrest exception to the warrant requirement. (53) Part II examines the underlying justifications for developing the scope of the search incident to a lawful arrest exception to the warrant requirement in general, and as it relates to vehicles. (54) Part III discusses theories offered to support expansion of the rule to include automatic searches of vehicles even when the original underlying justifications are not present and finds that the theories do not support expansion of the rule. (55) Part IV gives an application of the law as defined in Gant to its facts to conclude that the decision is consistent with precedent interpreting the applicable law. (56) Part V discusses the trend of the Court to revert back to the original justifications of rules with specific emphasis on Hudson v. Michigan. (57) It further discusses justifications of other rules articulated by the Court in developing exceptions to the warrant requirement and shows how compliance with those justifications is essential to the constitutionality of the search or seizure and to ultimately protecting individual constitutional rights. (58)

2. ARIZONA V. GANT: AN OVERVIEW

   In Arizona v. Gant, (59) police went to...