Yesterday, in Arizona v. Gant, 07-542, the United States Supreme Court ruled that police need a warrant to search a vehicle of a person arrested once that person is secured in a police cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.

The Court held, in a 5-4 decision:

Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Pp. 5–18. (a) Warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable,” “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357. The exception for a search incident to a lawful arrest applies only to “the area from within which [an arrestee] might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel, 395 U. S., at 763. This Court applied that exception to the automobile context in Belton, the holding of which rested inlarge part on the assumption that articles inside a vehicle’s passenger compartment are “generally . . . within ‘the area into which an arrestee might reach.’ ” 453 U. S., at 460.

Rodney Gant had been arrested in Tucson, AZ. for driving on a suspended license.  He was handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser.  During a subsequent warrantless search of his car, officers found cocaine and drug paraphernalia in the vehicle.  The Arizona trial court denied his Motion to Supress and he was convicted of drug offenses.

The majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, noted warrantless searches are permitted by police only if the car’s passenger compartment is within reach of the suspect or there is probable cause to believe evidence will be found of the crime that led to the arrest. 

In rejecting  more expansive search powers Stevens rationalized:

“A rule that gives the police the power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense, when there is no basis for believing evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals.  Indeed, the character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment - the concern about giving police officers the unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects”  Id. at 11-12.

So, what does this decision mean for the average New York driver?  Clearly more protection from police searches.  I have had countless cases where a driver was stopped by law enforcement for a simple traffic matter, such as speeding or another routine traffic violation, and it turns out they are driving on a suspended license and arrested.  Subsequent vehicle search turns up contraband.  Under Gant, the police now will need a warrant to search the vehicle, unless that search was for evidence of the crime that person was arrested for.  The same rationale applies to DWI cases where the driver is arrested and placed in the police cruiser.  Unless police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the crime of DWI, the police will need a warrant to search that vehicle.

It should be noted that Gant probably does not limit other Fourth Amendment warrant clause exceptions such as consent, inventory, parole/probation search, and weapons search upon reasonable suspicion.