Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More AZ v. Gant confusion bs

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More AZ v. Gant confusion bs

    An alarming amount of people apparently do not understand the opinion of AZ v. Gant. I've lurked in a few threads here where folks argue incorrectly about what AZ v. Gant means as well as officers in person. Today one of our academy instructors butchered it as well. Granted she was not instructing constitutional law (we have a J.D. come in and teach that) but she made a side remark about vehicle searches incident to arrest and how Gant removed that.... urgggggghhhh!!!!!!

    Obviously I didn't correct her, I didn't want to be "college boy", not to mention it would tick her off.

    No condescending attitude here, but it's frustrating to hear so many people misunderstand it. If some folks are under that the impression that SIA is no longer allowed in a vehicle, then they are missing out on some things.

  • #2
    No. What's frustrating is when someone complains that you searched their car illegally, they're going to go to your academy instructors to ask them....
    “The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."

    "You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him."

    Comment


    • #3
      LOL yes, that would be irritating.

      Speaking of, reminds me of this

      http://forums.officer.com/forums/sho...p?162189-Frisk

      Comment


      • #4
        One thing to note is that in some states it has been taken to the next level where SIA of a vehicle is NOT permitted any longer...

        Comment


        • #5
          Ok, this was brought up in the Federal Law Enforcement Informer when the decision was made. FLETC even did a video training explaining how the decision changed some things with SIA. Here's a good explanation of Gant v. Arizona. Of course the trouble when this went before the supreme court was the officers answer as to why the conducted the search his answer was "cause the law allows us to". This showed poor preparation by the officer to articulate a valid answer to the question. I would suggest that officer go over this article and use better articulation when explaining the reason for SIA.

          http://www.fletc.gov/training/progra...-gant.pdf/view
          GOD IS A NINJA WITH A SNIPER RIFLE, WAITING TO TAKE YOU OUT.

          "For weapons training they told me to play DOOM"

          Comment


          • #6
            HOS,

            Prepared to be more annoyed. You will encounter many people in your career that do not bother to stay UTD on SCOTUS ruling as well as state/local case law. It's frustrating and unprofessional, IMHO.
            sigpic

            I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect its straightforwardness in terms of wrongness.

            Comment


            • #7
              Not only do some people not stay up o date, but they don't understand search and seizure in the first place.

              You can still search the vehicle if you have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of the crime, and you may inventory the contents if you have it towed.
              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                I think the summation of the case is relatively clear:

                VI

                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. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.

                It is so ordered.
                Arizona Vs Gant
                Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

                [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]

                Comment


                • #9
                  If you're confused, do this:

                  1. Ask for consent.
                  2. If you don't get consent, tow the car. Before the car is towed, INVENTORY it. Problem solved, even for the "easily confused".

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TheChef
                    What happens if they don't have what you thought they had?
                    Either I don't understand the question, or you don't understand search incident to arrest. Let me make an example and then you can expound on your question.

                    I arrest a guy for "open container violation" for having an open 20oz beer in his cupholder. I put him in handcuffs. I CAN perform SIA to look for any other "evidence of the offense of arrest" (aka more open containers of alcohol). That SIA might yield other finds besides alcohol, but the search is ok.

                    I arrest a guy for suspended drivers license. I see/smell nothing illegal in his car (plain view doctrine). I cannot SIA for "evidence of the offense of arrest".

                    There are lots of caveats on this. E.G., I get consent, I DO see or smell something illegal, I see the person reaching around in the compartment prior to contact or prior to arrest (may search areas in immediate reach of driver for officer safety), I do a vehicle inventory according to policy whenever I arrest someone and tow their vehicle...

                    Now, if they don't have what I thought they had? I don't understand. I arrested them for something legit in my examples.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TheChef
                      What happens if they don't have what you thought they had?
                      Then they don't have it. You're search was still valid, you just didn't find anything. Drugs can be in hidden compartments in a car that aren't always noticable or in plain sight. The arrest is valid on it's own merits, you just didn't turn up what you can articulate as reason for your SIA. What made the change is the officer that did the SIA had the suspect in cuffs and in the back seat of the patrol car and didn't articulate that it was due to suspects prior history on drug related charges, and that he was nervous and constantly moving as though putting something under the seat before I approached the vehicle made me believe that ther might have been drugs in the vehicle. In stead the officer's answer when questioned was "the law said I can" was just someone being arrogant in thinnking that SIA didn't require some amount of resonable suspicion or probable cause. This goes back to being able to articulate resonable suspicion or probable cause properly when in court.
                      GOD IS A NINJA WITH A SNIPER RIFLE, WAITING TO TAKE YOU OUT.

                      "For weapons training they told me to play DOOM"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Come to NJ, where you damn near need a search warrant to search someone after being arrested.
                        Being a good street cop is like coming to work in a wet suit and peeing in your pants. It's a nice warm feeling, but you're the only one who knows anything has happened.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Michigan View Post
                          If you're confused, do this:

                          1. Ask for consent.
                          2. If you don't get consent, tow the car. Before the car is towed, INVENTORY it. Problem solved, even for the "easily confused".
                          You can't always tow a car just because the driver is arrested -- at least not in the Ninth Circuit.
                          Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by stormz5192 View Post
                            Come to NJ, where you damn near need a search warrant to search someone after being arrested.
                            You can thank the liberal judges your unions indirectly supported.
                            Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
                            Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by stormz5192 View Post
                              Come to NJ, where you damn near need a search warrant to search someone after being arrested.
                              +1 in Vermont

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 2622 users online. 139 members and 2483 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X