arizona v. gant case brief
Arizona v. Rodney Joseph Gant
1. Heading
a. Arizona v. R. Joseph Gant, Supreme Court of the United States, 2009 (April 21, 2009)
2. Statement of Facts
a. Tucson, Arizona police officers acted on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 N. Walnut Ave was being used to sell drugs. The door was answered by Rodney Gant, who after a records check, revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license.
b. The police officers returned later in the day, as Gant was driving onto the driveway and arrested him for driving with a suspended license. Gant was handcuffed and secured in a police vehicle.
c. After Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car: one officer found a gun and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket.
d. Gant was charged with possession of narcotics and paraphernalia.
3. Procedural History
a. Gant was charged with two offenses; possession if a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.
b. At motion to suppress, defendant argued the evidence seized from his car violated the Fourth Amendment on the ground that the search was warrantless.
c. Trial Court allowed the drugs found to be introduced as evidence at trial.
d. Gant was convicted of illegal drug possession.
e. Court of Appeals found the search to be unconstitutional, concluding that after the occupants were arrested the vehicle and its contents were "safely within the exclusive custody and control of the police."
f. Supreme Court grants certiorari
4. Issues
a. May a law enforcement officer conduct an automobile search as an incident to all lawful arrests, or must the officer reasonably fear for his own safety or for the integrity of the evidence before searching the automobile?
b. May a police officer conduct a warrantless search of a suspect’s vehicle if the suspect has been arrested, is
1. Heading
a. Arizona v. R. Joseph Gant, Supreme Court of the United States, 2009 (April 21, 2009)
2. Statement of Facts
a. Tucson, Arizona police officers acted on an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 N. Walnut Ave was being used to sell drugs. The door was answered by Rodney Gant, who after a records check, revealed that Gant’s driver’s license had been suspended and there was an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license.
b. The police officers returned later in the day, as Gant was driving onto the driveway and arrested him for driving with a suspended license. Gant was handcuffed and secured in a police vehicle.
c. After Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car: one officer found a gun and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket.
d. Gant was charged with possession of narcotics and paraphernalia.
3. Procedural History
a. Gant was charged with two offenses; possession if a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.
b. At motion to suppress, defendant argued the evidence seized from his car violated the Fourth Amendment on the ground that the search was warrantless.
c. Trial Court allowed the drugs found to be introduced as evidence at trial.
d. Gant was convicted of illegal drug possession.
e. Court of Appeals found the search to be unconstitutional, concluding that after the occupants were arrested the vehicle and its contents were "safely within the exclusive custody and control of the police."
f. Supreme Court grants certiorari
4. Issues
a. May a law enforcement officer conduct an automobile search as an incident to all lawful arrests, or must the officer reasonably fear for his own safety or for the integrity of the evidence before searching the automobile?
b. May a police officer conduct a warrantless search of a suspect’s vehicle if the suspect has been arrested, is