Comments on: 4th Amdmt gets CPR (Arizona v. Gant)

By: All drivers are dangerous and the police are the Borg | a public defender

All drivers are dangerous and the police are the Borg | a public defender — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 02:05:38 +0000

[...] defendant filed a motion to suppress relying on Arizona v. Gant, which holds that once you have arrested the occupants of the vehicle, there is no more legitimate [...]

By: Supreme Court outlaws unreasonable auto searches « The Least, First

Supreme Court outlaws unreasonable auto searches « The Least, First — Sat, 02 May 2009 00:58:57 +0000

[...] 4th Amdmt gets CPR (Arizona v. Gant) (apublicdefender.com) [...]

By: Benjamin Wolf

Benjamin Wolf — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:40:37 +0000

I wrote a post on the meaning of Gant’s new test. I was particularly interested because I wanted to know how it would relate to New York’s interpretation its State Constitution which has been stricter on the police than SCOTUS’ Belton decision. I wanted to know whether the Gant decision made the Supreme Courts SILA rules stricter than, more lenient than, or the same as New York’s existing law. I concluded that even after the Gant decision, their rules are still more lenient than New York’s and therefore New York SILA jurisprudence will probably not be affected by Gant. The link follows:

http://schlissellaw.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/after-gant-is-new-yorks-car-search-rule-stricter-more-lenient-or-juuuust-right/

By: SPO

SPO — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:28:12 +0000

Belton was a bad decision. From my (admittedly hazy)memory from law school, Belton could be justified on the fact that the order of the restraint and search shouldn’t matter, i.e., that cops could of course search an area within the wingspan before putting the cuffs on the person. But that is just so counterfactual. Cops aren’t going to dilly dally and search the wingspan before securing the person. Once the restraint is effected, the officer safety rationale is done.

And one thing Scalia did not mention. Bad state court decisions in Fourth Amendment cases don’t have any check. The suppression question cannot be raised in federal habeas. Thus, in the workaday word, the “artificial narrowing” vice clear rules is more of a problem than it otherwise would be.