the courts and the constitution arizona v. gant, 129 s.ct. 1710 (april 21, 2009) tm

The Courts and the The Courts and the ConstitutionConstitution

Arizona v. GantArizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 (April 21, 2009)(April 21, 2009)

TM

Do you know you have a Do you know you have a constitutional right to privacy?constitutional right to privacy?

What happens if your right to privacy What happens if your right to privacy has been violated by the has been violated by the government?government?

How would you challenge an How would you challenge an intrusion into your privacy that is intrusion into your privacy that is against the law?against the law?

TM

Today, we are going to see how Today, we are going to see how the courts determine whether the courts determine whether someone’s constitutional right to someone’s constitutional right to privacy has been violated, privacy has been violated, specifically in the context of specifically in the context of police officers searching a police officers searching a vehicle without a warrantvehicle without a warrant

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

If you were responsible for If you were responsible for selecting all of the judges in selecting all of the judges in Florida, what would you look Florida, what would you look for?for?

KnowledgeKnowledgeSkillsSkillsDisposition/QualitiesDisposition/Qualities

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

How are judges different How are judges different from other elected from other elected officials such as officials such as legislators?legislators?

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

Should judges be influenced by Should judges be influenced by political pressures when deciding a political pressures when deciding a case?case?

Would you want a judge to make a Would you want a judge to make a decision based on the law decision based on the law oror how how the public might react to the the public might react to the decision?decision?

Should judges do what is legally Should judges do what is legally right or should they do what is right or should they do what is popular?popular?

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

JUDGES MUST FOLLOWJUDGES MUST FOLLOW::

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONFEDERAL CONSTITUTION

STATE CONSTITUTIONSTATE CONSTITUTION

STATUTESSTATUTES

RULESRULES

HIGHER COURT DECISIONS HIGHER COURT DECISIONS (PRECEDENT)(PRECEDENT)

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

So, a judge cannot decide So, a judge cannot decide a case based on how a case based on how he/she he/she feelsfeels about an about an issue.issue.

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

If a judge does not follow the If a judge does not follow the existing law the decision makes, existing law the decision makes, he/she is subject to he/she is subject to reviewreview by an by an appellate court.appellate court.

All courts are subject to review by All courts are subject to review by a higher court a higher court exceptexcept the highest the highest court in the country: the Supreme court in the country: the Supreme Court of the United States.Court of the United States.

TM

Today, you will be a Today, you will be a justice on the U.S. justice on the U.S. Supreme Court and Supreme Court and decide a real case.decide a real case.

TM

Today, you will judge Today, you will judge whether the police whether the police violated the Fourth violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when they Constitution when they searched someone’s searched someone’s vehicle without a warrantvehicle without a warrant

TM

FOURTH AMENDMENTFOURTH AMENDMENT

But first –But first –

You need to know about You need to know about the Fourth Amendment the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.to the U.S. Constitution.

TM

FOURTH AMENDMENT FOURTH AMENDMENT The TextThe Text

““The right of the people to be secure in their The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effectspersons, houses, papers, and effects, , against unreasonable searches and seizures,against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issueissue, but upon probable cause,, but upon probable cause, supported supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized.”persons or things to be seized.”

TM


Does the Fourth Amendment Does the Fourth Amendment mean that whenever police mean that whenever police officers search someone’s person officers search someone’s person or possession they must have a or possession they must have a warrant?warrant?

Let’s look at what the United Let’s look at what the United States Supreme Court has said States Supreme Court has said about the issue…about the issue…

TM


“…“…searches conducted outside the searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are approval by judge or magistrate, are per seper se unreasonable under the unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment-subject only to a Fourth Amendment-subject only to a few established and well-delineated few established and well-delineated exceptions.” exceptions.” Katz v. United StatesKatz v. United States, , 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967).389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967).

TM


One of the most important One of the most important exceptions to the warrant exceptions to the warrant requirement is a “search incident to requirement is a “search incident to lawful arrest.”lawful arrest.”

But what does this exception mean?But what does this exception mean?

TM

Chimel v. CaliforniaChimel v. California, , 395 U.S. 752 (1969)395 U.S. 752 (1969)

Police officers arrived at the home of Ted Chimel Police officers arrived at the home of Ted Chimel to arrest him for burglary. When they arrived to arrest him for burglary. When they arrived Chimel was not there, but his wife was, so the Chimel was not there, but his wife was, so the police ushered her into the house and waited for police ushered her into the house and waited for Chimel.Chimel.

When Chimel arrived they served him with the When Chimel arrived they served him with the arrest warrant and asked if they could “look arrest warrant and asked if they could “look around,” but Chimel objected. The police officers around,” but Chimel objected. The police officers searched the house anyway “on the basis of a searched the house anyway “on the basis of a lawful arrest.” No search warrant existed.lawful arrest.” No search warrant existed.

TM

Chimel v. CaliforniaChimel v. California, , 395 U.S. 752 (1969)395 U.S. 752 (1969)

The officers searched the entire house for an The officers searched the entire house for an hour, mainly looking for items in plain sight. In hour, mainly looking for items in plain sight. In the master bedroom and the sewing room, the the master bedroom and the sewing room, the officers instructed the wife to physically move officers instructed the wife to physically move contents of the drawers from side to side so the contents of the drawers from side to side so the police could view any items that may have come police could view any items that may have come from the burglary.from the burglary.

As a direct result of the search, the officers found As a direct result of the search, the officers found and seized a number of incriminating items that and seized a number of incriminating items that were later used against the defendant at trial.were later used against the defendant at trial.

TM

Chimel v. CaliforniaChimel v. California, , 395 U.S. 752 (1969) 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested to arresting officer to search the person arrested to remove any weapons that the person might seek remove any weapons that the person might seek to use to resist arrest or effect escape. Otherwise, to use to resist arrest or effect escape. Otherwise, the the officer’s safety could be endangeredofficer’s safety could be endangered, and the , and the arrest itself frustrated. It is also reasonable for arrest itself frustrated. It is also reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person to prevent its evidence on the arrestee’s person to prevent its concealment or destructionconcealment or destruction. The area into which . The area into which an arrestee could reach to grab a weapon or an arrestee could reach to grab a weapon or evidentiary items is governed by the same a rule.evidentiary items is governed by the same a rule.

TM


The Court held that the “search incident to arrest The Court held that the “search incident to arrest exception” was necessary to exception” was necessary to protect the arresting protect the arresting officerofficer..

The search that follows the arrest is limited to The search that follows the arrest is limited to areas where the detainee may be able to areas where the detainee may be able to physically reach and obtain a weapon.physically reach and obtain a weapon.

The Court limited the search area to the The Court limited the search area to the “arrestee’s person and the area within his “arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control.”immediate control.”

TM


The Court and held that the search was in The Court and held that the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The search was unreasonable because it went The search was unreasonable because it went “far beyond the petitioner’s person and the area “far beyond the petitioner’s person and the area from within which he might have obtained either from within which he might have obtained either a weapon or something that could have been a weapon or something that could have been used as evidence against him.”used as evidence against him.”

TM

Searches Incident to ArrestSearches Incident to Arrest

We learn from We learn from ChimelChimel that there are two that there are two types of items the Court is concerned about types of items the Court is concerned about the detainee obtaining that justify a search the detainee obtaining that justify a search incident to arrest:incident to arrest:

Weapons that can harm the detaining Weapons that can harm the detaining officerofficer

Evidence that may be related to a crimeEvidence that may be related to a crime

TM

What happens when the What happens when the search is incident to a search is incident to a traffic stop arrest?traffic stop arrest?

Do the same rules Do the same rules apply?apply?

TM

New York v. BeltonNew York v. Belton, , 453 U.S. 950 (1981) 453 U.S. 950 (1981)

In In New York v. BeltonNew York v. Belton, the Court , the Court considered a person in an automobile considered a person in an automobile context.context.

A police officer in an unmarked car A police officer in an unmarked car stopped a speeding car with four stopped a speeding car with four individuals inside.individuals inside.

The police officer asked for the license and The police officer asked for the license and registration of the driver and discovered registration of the driver and discovered that no one in the car owned the vehicle or that no one in the car owned the vehicle or was related to the owner of the vehicle.was related to the owner of the vehicle.

TM


The police smelled burnt marijuana and saw an The police smelled burnt marijuana and saw an envelope on the floor of the car marked envelope on the floor of the car marked “Supergold,” a name for marijuana in the area.“Supergold,” a name for marijuana in the area.

The officer ordered the four men out of the car, The officer ordered the four men out of the car, placed each under arrest for possession of placed each under arrest for possession of marijuana, patted them down, and split them up marijuana, patted them down, and split them up into four separate places so they would not be into four separate places so they would not be able to physically touch each other.able to physically touch each other.

TM


The officer secured the envelope labeled The officer secured the envelope labeled “Supergold” and then read each of the individuals “Supergold” and then read each of the individuals their Miranda warnings. He then searched each their Miranda warnings. He then searched each of the detainees and the passenger compartment of the detainees and the passenger compartment of the stopped vehicle. In the backseat the of the stopped vehicle. In the backseat the officer secured a jacket, unzipped one of the officer secured a jacket, unzipped one of the pockets, and discovered cocaine.pockets, and discovered cocaine.

TM


The issue before the Court was does The issue before the Court was does the scope of a legal search incident the scope of a legal search incident to arrest include the passenger to arrest include the passenger compartment of the automobile in compartment of the automobile in which [an arrestee] was riding?which [an arrestee] was riding?

TM


What do you think?What do you think? Remember, we learned from Remember, we learned from ChimelChimel that there that there

are two types of items the Court is concerned are two types of items the Court is concerned about the detainee obtaining that justify a search about the detainee obtaining that justify a search incident to arrest:incident to arrest: Weapons that can harm the detaining officerWeapons that can harm the detaining officer Evidence that may be related to a crimeEvidence that may be related to a crime

Could the passenger compartment of a car Could the passenger compartment of a car contain items that are included in one of these contain items that are included in one of these two categories?two categories?

TM


When a policeman has made a lawful custodial When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as an incident to that arrest, search the as an incident to that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.passenger compartment of that automobile.

Police may also examine the contents of any Police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger containers found within the passenger compartment because if the passenger compartment because if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, the compartment is within reach of the arrestee, the containers in it be within reach. Such a container containers in it be within reach. Such a container may be searched whether it is open or closed.may be searched whether it is open or closed.

TM


The passenger compartment of the The passenger compartment of the vehicle, and the jacket inside the vehicle, and the jacket inside the vehicle, were “within the arrestee’s vehicle, were “within the arrestee’s immediate control” within the immediate control” within the meaning of the meaning of the ChimelChimel case,” and case,” and the search did the search did NOTNOT violate the violate the Fourth Amendment.Fourth Amendment.

TM

You saw just how the You saw just how the United State Supreme United State Supreme Court applied the Court applied the Fourth Amendment to Fourth Amendment to specific situations, now specific situations, now you give it a try.you give it a try.

TM

The Warrantless Vehicle The Warrantless Vehicle SearchSearch

Handout C is a case in which the Handout C is a case in which the United States Supreme Court United States Supreme Court had to decide whether the police had to decide whether the police violated the Fourth Amendment.violated the Fourth Amendment.

Read and highlight or circle the Read and highlight or circle the important facts.important facts.

TM


Before we discover how the United Before we discover how the United States Supreme Court decided States Supreme Court decided GantGant, , ask yourself the following questions ask yourself the following questions and provide written answers based and provide written answers based upon the cases we have discussed:upon the cases we have discussed:

TM


Did the police have a legitimate Did the police have a legitimate concern that Gant could have concern that Gant could have obtained one of the two items the obtained one of the two items the Court listed as reasons for a search Court listed as reasons for a search incident to arrest?incident to arrest?

Remember, the two items are: Remember, the two items are: Weapons that can harm the detaining officerWeapons that can harm the detaining officer Evidence that may be related to a crimeEvidence that may be related to a crime

TM


If one of those two items was at issue If one of those two items was at issue here, were those items within Gant’s here, were those items within Gant’s “immediate control?”“immediate control?”

TM


How are the facts from this case How are the facts from this case similar to the facts from the similar to the facts from the BeltonBelton case?case?

How are they different? How are they different?

TM

Now you are Justices Now you are Justices on the U.S. Supreme on the U.S. Supreme Court.Court.

Here is the question Here is the question before the court…before the court…TM


Is the Fourth Amendment Is the Fourth Amendment violated when a police officer violated when a police officer searches the vehicle of a searches the vehicle of a detainee after the detainee is detainee after the detainee is handcuffed, locked in the back of handcuffed, locked in the back of a patrol vehicle, and thus unable a patrol vehicle, and thus unable to access any portion of the to access any portion of the vehicle?vehicle?

TM


Individually answer the question Individually answer the question – –

Yes or No – based on the facts of Yes or No – based on the facts of the case, the constitution, and the case, the constitution, and case precedent.case precedent.

-Give 3 reasons in writing.-Give 3 reasons in writing.

TM


If you answer “Yes” – you are If you answer “Yes” – you are deciding for Richard Joseph deciding for Richard Joseph Gant.Gant.

__________________________________________________________

If you answer “No” you are If you answer “No” you are deciding for the State of Arizona. deciding for the State of Arizona.

TM

• Form groups of 5Form groups of 5

• Choose a Chief JusticeChoose a Chief Justice

• Chief Justice Maintains OrderChief Justice Maintains Order

• Poll the Justices. How did each one of you answer the Poll the Justices. How did each one of you answer the

questions and why?questions and why?

• Try to reach to a unanimous decision. Did the police Try to reach to a unanimous decision. Did the police

officers‘ actions violate the Fourth Amendment?officers‘ actions violate the Fourth Amendment?

• You have You have 10 minutes10 minutes to discuss then take a final poll. to discuss then take a final poll.


TM


After each Court decides:After each Court decides:

Bring the Chief Justices to the Bring the Chief Justices to the front of the room to report on front of the room to report on the decision of each groupthe decision of each group

Tally results and announceTally results and announce

TM


Constitutional QuestionConstitutional Question

Is the Fourth Amendment violated Is the Fourth Amendment violated when a police officer searches the when a police officer searches the vehicle of a detainee after the vehicle of a detainee after the detainee is handcuffed, locked in detainee is handcuffed, locked in the back of a patrol vehicle, and the back of a patrol vehicle, and thus unable to access any portion thus unable to access any portion of the vehicle?of the vehicle?

TM


What did the real U.S. What did the real U.S. Supreme Court decide Supreme Court decide and why?and why?

TM

Arizona v. GantArizona v. Gant, , 129 S.Ct. 1710 (April 21, 2009)129 S.Ct. 1710 (April 21, 2009)

The United States The United States Supreme Court held Supreme Court held that the search of that the search of Gant’s vehicle violated Gant’s vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment.the Fourth Amendment.

TM


The Court revisited its opinion in The Court revisited its opinion in ChimelChimel, , reiterating the two justifications for a reiterating the two justifications for a search incident to arrest:search incident to arrest:

““In In ChimelChimel, we held that a search incident to , we held that a search incident to arrest may only include ‘the arrestee’s person arrest may only include ‘the arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control – and the area within his immediate control – construing that phrase to mean the area from construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a within which he might gain possession of a weaponweapon or or destructible evidencedestructible evidence.”.”

TM


““If there is no possibility that an If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not applyand the rule does not apply.”.”

TM


““[T]he [T]he ChimelChimel rationale authorizes rationale authorizes police to search a vehicle incident to police to search a vehicle incident to arrest arrest onlyonly when the arrestee is when the arrestee is unsecuredunsecured and and within reaching within reaching distance of the passenger distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the compartment at the time of the searchsearch.”.”

TM


This case is distinguished from This case is distinguished from BeltonBelton because in because in BeltonBelton the four individuals were unsecure and the the four individuals were unsecure and the police officer was outnumbered four to one, so police officer was outnumbered four to one, so the risk of one of the detainees posing a threat to the risk of one of the detainees posing a threat to the officer was real. the officer was real.

Here, the police officers outnumbered the Here, the police officers outnumbered the detainees five to three, all of them were fully detainees five to three, all of them were fully detained and handcuffed, and there was little, if detained and handcuffed, and there was little, if any, risk of Gant accessing his vehicle.any, risk of Gant accessing his vehicle.

TM


Based on these factors, the Court Based on these factors, the Court held that the search on Gant’s held that the search on Gant’s vehicle violated the Fourth vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment.Amendment.

TM

the courts and the constitution arizona v. gant, 129 s.ct. 1710 (april 21, 2009) tm

Documents