Discuss Arizona v. Gant (2009). What is the history of the case, what constitutional amendment is under scrutiny, and what did court rule? Do you agree or disagree with the Courts holding? Explain

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

• Most courts have held that the Fourth Amendment ban against unreasonable search and seizure applies to juveniles and that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in a juvenile trial.
• To exclude incriminating evidence, a juvenile's attorney makes a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence, the same procedure that is used in the adult criminal process.
• In Arizona v. Gant (2009) the Court limited a police officer's ability to search a vehicle for evidence.
• After Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, he was handcuffed and locked in the back of a patrol car. A police officer noticed a jacket on the backseat, searched the jacket, and found cocaine.
• The Court ruled that police 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 it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
• The search of Gant's jacket was deemed unreasonable since he could not gain access to it and the cocaine was therefore inadmissible at trial.
• The Gant case is important because controlling a suspect after arrest is critical to police safety. Some officers may now sacrifice safety concerns in order to search suspects or their vehicles.
• Student views will vary.