Arizona v. Gant (2009)
Arizona v. Gant (2009): Limits on Vehicle Searches Incident to Arrest
Police can’t automatically search a car after arrest — the scope is narrow and fact-specific.
Background
Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and secured in a patrol car. Officers then searched his vehicle and found cocaine in a jacket pocket. Gant argued the search was unlawful because he was already secured and the offense of arrest (license suspension) did not suggest evidence would be found in the car.
Questions Presented
- When, if ever, may officers search a vehicle incident to arrest after the arrestee has been secured?
- Does the offense of arrest matter to whether evidence may be sought in the vehicle?
Majority Opinion — Justice John Paul Stevens
Holding: Officers may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if (1) the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, or (2) it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the offense of arrest.
The Court rejected a broad, automatic vehicle-search rule. Stevens explained that the original justification for searches incident to arrest is officer safety and preservation of evidence. Once a suspect is handcuffed and physically separated from the car, those justifications largely disappear. The Court also recognized a narrower, evidence-based rationale: if the nature of the arrest makes it reasonable to believe evidence of that specific offense might be found in the car (e.g., drug possession, open container), a limited search may be permissible.
Gant sharply curtailed routine vehicle sweeps and shifted litigation toward whether officers had a particularized, offense-related basis to search. For Texas practice, including Montgomery County stops, defense motions focus on: (a) whether the defendant was secured before the search; (b) whether the State can articulate why evidence of the arrest offense would likely be in the car; and (c) whether officers impermissibly relied on a categorical “search every time” approach. If those showings are absent, suppression of anything found in the passenger compartment—and often derivative evidence—should follow. Gant also interacts with automobile-probable-cause and inventory-search doctrines; prosecutors frequently pivot to those alternatives, so a thorough defense brief addresses and distinguishes each theory.