The New York Times article on this case states that this all started in 1981 with the decision of New York v. Belton. In this case, police officers were pretty much given the green light to search any car any person has been arrested in. However, the Justices in the majority of Arizona v. Gant, Justice John Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all felt that the ruling in New York v. Belton had been too broadly applied and needed limiting. The standard set forth in the decision of Arizona v. Gant is stated in the New York Times article as follows:
Vehicle searches should be allowed only in two situations, he wrote: when the person being arrested is close enough to the car to reach in, possibly to grab a weapon or tamper with evidence; or when the arresting officer reasonably believes that the car contains evidence pertinent to the very crime that prompted the arrest.
As someone who has personally experienced multiple warantless searches by police officers, (Tip for readers: Do not ever drive a black Camaro through Garfield, New Jersey; You'll be sitting on the side of the road for forty-five minutes while they search your car for drugs) I can completely understand why the Court has finally decided to restrict the ability of police officers to search your car. In the instances I am talking about, no arrests were made, so maybe the rules are different. However, I do not see any reason to search the car of someone who is arrested for a traffic violation. So many weapons and drugs charges merely piggy-back some sort of traffic violation. Watch Cops sometime, you'll see what I'm talking about. While I do not support drug use or illegal possession of weapons, I do greatly value privacy. If the person is arrested for some unrelated traffic offense, what you would find when searching their car is irrelevant. I think that too often police officers are given too much leeway as far as violating individual rights is concerned. It will be interesting to see how the police handle adjusting to this limitation on their power.
I also have to note that I was very surprised to see the way the Court split on this issue. I was shocked That Justice Stevens, the most liberal member of the Court, and Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Court, wound up on the same side of a case that was split 5-4. This was especially meaningful given the widespread impact this decision will have on Police Departments around the country. There is one thing I have not been able to figure out yet about this case, and maybe someone else can help:
I know that police officers now cannot search the vehicle of an individual who has been arrested unless there may be evidence of the crime in the car or the individual being arrested is close enough to the car to reach into to it. What I am wondering is if this applies to traffic stops where no arrest is made. I would assume that it does, but you can never be too sure with the number of needless laws in this country. Can the police just pull you over for a traffic violation and still search your car when no arrest is made? I have tried to find the answer to this question, but I have not been able to. Any input?
