In Arizona v. Gant, the U.S. Supreme Court held that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest in only two situations: when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, or when it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.1Justia. Arizona v. Gant
The case arose after officers arrested Rodney Gant for driving on a suspended license. He was handcuffed and locked in a patrol car. Officers then searched his vehicle and found a handgun and cocaine in a jacket on the back seat. The Court used those facts to narrow a search-incident-to-arrest rule that many departments had been reading broadly.1Justia. Arizona v. Gant
When the Arrestee Is Within Reach of the Car
The first path to a lawful search focuses on officer safety. If the person under arrest could still reach into the passenger compartment at the moment officers begin searching, the search is permitted. Once the arrestee is handcuffed in a patrol car or otherwise restrained from getting back to the vehicle, that justification disappears.2LII / Legal Information Institute. Arizona v. Gant
Courts look at the actual scene: how many officers were present, where the arrestee was positioned, and whether the interior of the car was realistically accessible. The question is not whether the person was arrested near the car; it’s whether they could still grab something from inside it when the search took place.1Justia. Arizona v. Gant
When Evidence of the Offense Might Be in the Car
The second path allows a search when it is reasonable to believe evidence of the specific crime of arrest could be inside. There has to be a real link between the reason for the arrest and the likelihood of finding something in the vehicle. An arrest for drug possession, for example, gives officers a logical reason to look for more drugs in the car.2LII / Legal Information Institute. Arizona v. Gant
That link was missing in Gant’s own case. He was arrested for driving on a suspended license, an offense that leaves no evidence to recover from the passenger compartment. With Gant already secured in the patrol car and no evidence of his offense to find, neither justification applied, and the search was ruled unlawful.1Justia. Arizona v. Gant
How Far the Search Can Go
When a search is justified under Gant, it reaches the passenger compartment: the seats, floorboards, and containers found inside the cabin. Officers may open containers within that area, whether open or closed. Common examples include:3Justia. New York v. Belton
- Backpacks and purses
- Glove boxes
- Consoles
- Door pockets
The trunk is a separate matter. Earlier decisions drew a line between the passenger cabin and the trunk based on what is immediately accessible to the occupants.4United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. United States v. Mazyck Reaching the trunk generally takes a different legal basis, such as the automobile exception, which requires probable cause to believe the vehicle holds contraband or evidence of a crime.5Justia. United States v. Ross