Preview

Arizona vs Grant

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1130 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Arizona vs Grant
Arizona v. Grant

Arizona v. Grant
The U.S. Supreme Court limits how police searches a vehicle after Arizona v. Grant. April 21, 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court adds new limits on how law enforcement officer can search the passenger compartments of a vehicle. Due to this ruling, police officers require having either evidence of a crime for which the suspect is being arrested for, or the officers are completing a weapons check that could be within reach of the suspect. Arizona v. Grant makes important changes within the Fourth Amendment. After New York v. Belton, the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed officers to search the passenger compartment of any vehicle when the person was being arrested that was driving or was a passenger in without a warrant. Belton’s justification was the fact that a person can constitutionally be search for weapons and any other evidence, and further that any officer can search the immediate area of control for weapons or any other evidence. Since the new ruling with Arizona v. Grant overturns the ruling of New York v. Belton, and sets a new standard for what is allowed during a search in a car related arrested.
New Ruling
The new ruling in Arizona v. grant adds modifications to the Fourth Amendment in regards to police searches. The changes state, “Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest” (Arizona v. Grant 07-542.) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the fact that officers can justify search a vehicle in traffic violations or any situation where no other evidence of crime had occurred. Example of those would be: failure to appear, driving without a license, failing to pay child support. Arizona v. Grant allows checking for weapons within reach of the suspect, or anywhere reasonable within reach of the suspect.



References: Commonwealth v. Cass, 709 A.2d 350, 357 (Pa. 1998) Kathy Davis, John Kelsey, Dia Langellier, Misty Mapes, and Jeff Rosendahl Surveillance in Schools: Safety vs. Personal Privacy Locker Searches students.ed.uiuc.edu/jkelsey/surveillance/locker.htm http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm U.S. V. Davis 482 F.2d 893,908

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    4th Amendment protects your right against unreasonable search and seizure of property, papers, or people without valid probable cause…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Arizona v. Gant (2009) SCOTUS rule held that the Belton rule was revised as the justices stated that it did not give authority for the police officers to search an arrestee’s vehicle if the occupant had been arrested and therefore could not access the interior of the car. This implies that the police should only search the arrestee and places that could be reached. Gant could no longer reach the interior of his car, and there was no reasonable ground to suppose that a search would produce evidence to support the offense of driving on a suspended license. Gant v. Arizona established that a search of a vehicle after an arrest is permissible when the arrestee is not confined, and the passenger compartment is within their immediate reach.…

    • 296 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Essay Arizona vs. Grant

    • 356 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The case Arizona vs. Grant occured because an event that happened on August 25, 1999 involving two police officers, and a suspect who was believed to be involved in narcotics activity. The officers first visit to the house where the suspect lived was followed by a second visit later that night because he wasnt there at the initial visit. After their first visit they ran a background check and found causes for the arrest of the subject, Rodney Grant. Upon the second return the subject Rodney Grant was apprehended after pulling into his driveway and walking about ten feet towards the officers. After they placed him in the police vehicle, they searched the suspects car, which was the cause of the Arizona vs Grant case, because of a debate on evidence pulled from the car without reasonable reasons to search it. Although there was cocaine and a weapons in the car, the officers didnt have reasons to prove why the searched it after the suspect had already been apprehended and put into the police vehicle. It is because of this that led to questioning of why the car was searched because Grant was not in the nearby vicinity of the vehicle and therefore no harm to the officers unless he had a weapons in his immediate possession.…

    • 356 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The issue brought into question in the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968 involved a police officer, McFadden, who was patrolling the area in normal clothes. He came across two men pacing the area suspiciously and glancing into a store. He the watched them meet at a street corner frequently where they were joined by another man. After watching them do this approximately twenty-four times he approached the group and asked them their names. He patted down the overcoat that the man was wearing and felt a revolver, which he then removed. The defense argued the issue to be admissibility of evidence uncovered by an improper search and seizure. They argued that the Fourth Amendment protects the people despite where they are; at home or on the streets. It…

    • 406 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is a cause, and a probable cause must be sworn to by the police officer or prosecutor and approved by a judge. A warrant must describe what is being searched and what will be seized. 100 marijuana plants were found finalizing the arrest of DLK; however, did the scan violate DLK’s Fourth Amendment rights? The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall be issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Constitution). This amendment touches on the expectation of privacy in your home and person. The government is not unable to search you, your home, your belongings, or take your belongings, also known as a seizure, without a good reason. A person’s Fourth Amendment rights may at times seem to delay the world of law enforcement. If the police feel that they have…

    • 987 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Arizona v. Gant

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Respondent, Rodney Gant, was arrested for driving with a suspended license. Subsequent to the search of the Gant’s vehicle officers found cocaine in the back seat. At trial Gant moved to have the evidence suppressed denied that there was probable cause to search the vehicle, but did not decide to suppress the evidence. The court ruled the search to be that incident to an arrest. Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to three-year prison term.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Other conditions on the searches incident to arrest exception include the use of force, the search of other individuals with the arrested individual, searching the vehicle of an arrest person, contemporaneousness and inventory searches "if a government agent has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime without a warrant" because "in the time it would take to get a warrant, the car, driver and contraband or evidence could be long gone" (Harr, Hess, 2006. p. 231). The 1981 case of Robbins v. California saw the justifications for searching without a warrant. Those specifications include that the mobility of vehicles produce exigent circumstances.…

    • 310 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    This rule gives police officers the ability to seize evidence involved in a crime without a warrant if the evidence is in plain sight. This rule is limited by probable cause which requires police officers to have probable cause and believe the items in plain view are evidence before they seize them. The fourth amendment does prevent unreasonable searches and seizures.…

    • 280 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Weeks Vs United States

    • 302 Words
    • 2 Pages

     Practical: Arguments  Weeks’ view: The 4th Amendment states that people are safe from unreasonable and searches without a warranty. And any evidence obtained from illegal an search is illegal. Federal officials should not be able to break the law in order to enforce the law.  United States’ view: An arrest was made in connection with a search, and further searches produced further evidence of illegal activity.…

    • 302 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    I honestly believe that the officer was on legal grounds to search anywhere in the vehicle because he was given the consent to search by…

    • 602 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “[t]he right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (U.S. Const. amend. IV). When the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens are violated, the criminal justice system enforces the exclusionary rule, which seeks to discourage law enforcement officers from using improper or illegal investigative procedures. In Mapp v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the exclusionary rule was…

    • 939 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Cali

    • 614 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The California V Acevedo case greatly impacted the United States in how the police can search an automobile; this case gave police much broader powers to search vehicles without a warrant. The court adopted a single rule: “The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probably cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.” Justices White, Stevens, and Marshall objected (Oyez Project). This impacts everyone who owns a vehicle in the United States, if police have suspicions that you posses an illegal substance in your vehicle they do not need a warrant and can search the package inside your vehicle on the spot.…

    • 614 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Stop and Frisk

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns,…

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In an effort to maximize an individuals rights during search and seizures along with stop-and-frisks, the United States government has developed numerous laws and amendments. The Fourth Amendment states, The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched , and the persons or things to be seized (U.S. Constitution). This amendment was first used in the court system in the case of Terry vs. Ohio (1968). This case was the case that shaped the stop-and-frisk laws that are found in our country today. In 1942 legislators started to authorize stops-and-frisks on less than probable cause under the Uniform Arrest Act. This act gave an officer the right stop a person in public based upon reasonable ground to suspect that the person is committing has committed, or is about to commit a crime, and then search him for a dangerous weapon if the officer has reasonable ground to believe that he is in danger (Whitebread, 2000). In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect…

    • 372 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Stop and Frisk

    • 497 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. Modern officials have granted police officers in New York City an incentive to respect the amendment. The Stop and Frisk program employed by the New York Police Department, gives police officers the right to initiate a stop of an individual on the street allegedly and do a quick search of their outer clothes for weapons based on if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. This reasonable suspicion is not based with specific facts but from the hunches from New York Police officers.…

    • 497 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays