Law Enforcement Search Limits After Arizona v Gant

Law Enforcement After Gant . . . What happened and what can we expect? Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009

United States Supreme Court Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009) Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 The U.S. Supreme Court limited the circumstances under which officers may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle after it’s driver had been arrested. The Court ruled that an officer can only search a vehicle if it is for officer safety or if there is reason to believe that there is evidence in the car that relates to the crime which the driver was arrested for.

Why is “Labor” concerned with Administrative issues ? Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009

“ Police officers must obey the law while enforcing the law.” Spano v. New York , 79 S.Ct. 1202 (1959) Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009

What is the Law? Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009

What Happened ? Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009

What may I do? Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009

The Law . . . Katz v. U.S. (1967) . . . Chimel v. California (1969) . . . New York v Belton (1981) . . . Maryland v. Buie (1990). . . Thornton v. United States (2004) . . . now . . . Arizona v. Gant Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 Katz v. U.S ., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) The United States Supreme Court decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant . “ reasonable expectation of privacy”

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 The holding of Chimel v. California , 395 U. S. 752 (1969), continues to be good law, insofar as the search incident to arrest can be justified by the suspect’s ability to lunge to an area and destroy evidence or reach a weapon.

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 The Fourth Amendment rule of New York v. Belton , 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which permits police officers to make an immediate search of the passenger compartment of an automobile incident to the arrest of an occupant or "recent occupant," applies when officers do not initiate contact with the occupant until after he has voluntarily exited the vehicle and walked away from it.

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 The Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. In holding that, respectively, an on-the-street "frisk" and a roadside search of an automobile's passenger compartment were reasonable despite the absence of a warrant or probable cause. Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325 (1990)

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 In Thornton v. United States , 541 U. S. 615 (2004), the Court recognized that a search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent occupant may be also justified “when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle .”

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 THORTON Chimel Buie Gant Putting it all together

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 Belton Gant One Police Officer 5 Police Officers 4 Occupants of the Car Three suspects/arrestees None are handcuffed All are handcuffed M/V violation w/ marijuana odor Suspended license Evidence NO EVIDENCE

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 One of the practical dangers of the decision in Arizona v. Gant that some officers may conclude that there is a practical balancing act, or a tactical trade-off so to speak. An Officer may leave the suspect unsecured, un-handcuffed, and near the car, so that there remains the possibility that that suspect would lunge toward a weapon and thus, create the legal justification for a search. The legal justification may come at the cost of a significant risk to the officers’ safety.

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Presented by : Attorney Marshall T. Segar AFSCME Public Safety Congress Las Vegas, NV November 2009 Attorney Marshall T. Segar 860.303.3524 [email_address] www.marshalllawusa.com

Law Enforcement Search Limits After Arizona v Gant

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Law Enforcement Search Limits After Arizona v Gant