Arizona v. Gant

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Arizona v. Gant
ArgueDate=October 7
ArgueYear=2008
DecideDate=
DecideYear=
FullName=State of Arizona, Petitioner v. Rodney Joseph Gant
Docket=07-542
USVol=
USPage=
Citation=
Prior=
Subsequent=
QuestionsPresented=Whether the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.
Holding=
SCOTUS=2006-2008
Majority=
JoinMajority=
Concurrence=
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=
JoinDissent=
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=

"Arizona v. Gant" is an ongoing legal case in which the United States Supreme Court has to decide whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

The case involves Rodney J. Gant, who was arrested by Tucson, Arizona, police and charged with driving with a suspended driver’s license. Police arrested Gant in his yard, after he had parked his vehicle and was walking away. The officers then searched the vehicle and found a weapon and bag of cocaine, charging him additionally with possession of a narcotic for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.

A group of legal scholars, including University of Iowa law professor James Tomkovicz, have written an amicus curiae brief, asking the court to overturn its precedent from a 1981 case, "New York v. Belton", that gives police the right to search a person’s vehicle even if that person is not in the vehicle. According to Tomkovicz, "Belton" fails to meet the constitutional standard of probable cause. [cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Law professor Tomkovicz writes brief for case in upcoming Supreme Court term |url=http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080929/NEWS01/80929005/1079 |work=The Press-Citizen |publisher= |date=2008-09-29 |accessdate= ]

ee also

*"Chimel v. California" (1969)
*"Thornton v. United States" (2004)

References

Further reading

*cite journal |last=Emmons |first=C. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2004 |month= |title="Arizona v. Gant": An Argument for Tossing "Belton" and All Its Bastard Kin |journal=Arizona State Law Journal |volume=36 |issue= |pages=1067 |issn=01644297 |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite journal |last=Rudstein |first=David S. |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2005 |month= |title="Belton" Redux: Re-evaluating "Belton"'s Per Se Rule Governing the Search of an Automobile Incident to an Arrest |journal=Wake Forest Law Review |volume=40 |issue= |pages=1287 |issn=0043003X |url= |accessdate= |quote=
*cite journal |last=Wells |first=Holly |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2007 |month= |title="State v. Gant": Departing from the Bright-Line "Belton" Rule in Automobile Searches Incident to Arrest |journal=Arizona Law Review |volume=49 |issue= |pages=1033–1041 |issn=0004153X |url= |accessdate= |quote=