Opinion ID: 2454018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gant, Its Progeny, and Their Legal Impact in Washington

Text: ¶ 14 In Gant, the United States Supreme Court announced a new rule governing the automobile search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Court held that the exception applies in only two circumstances: (1) when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search and (2) when it is `reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.' Gant, 129 S.Ct. at 1719 (quoting Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 632, 124 S.Ct. 2127, 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring)). Though the Court was at pains to explain that its rule was consistent with its earlier decisions in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), and New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), [4] see Gant, 129 S.Ct. at 1716-18, it also acknowledged that its earlier opinions had been widely understood to allow a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there is no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search. Id. at 1718. Washington was one jurisdiction with such an understanding. ¶ 15 Prior to Gant, this court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as our interpretation of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, permitted warrantless vehicle searches incident to a recent occupant's arrest regardless of the status of the recent occupant. In State v. Stroud, 106 Wash.2d 144, 720 P.2d 436 (1986), overruled by State v. Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761, 777, 224 P.3d 751 (2009), eight justices agreed that such searches were permissible. Id. at 152, 720 P.2d 436 (lead opinion) (During the arrest process, including the time immediately subsequent to the suspect's being arrested, handcuffed, and placed in a patrol car, officers should be allowed to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for weapons or destructible evidence.), 174 (Durham, J., concurring) (A lawful arrest provides Const. art. 1, § 7's required authority of law for a search of an automobile.). In many circumstances where this court had expressly permitted such searches under Stroud, Gant now prohibits such searches. ¶ 16 Shortly after Gant was decided, we had the opportunity to revisit the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. In State v. Patton , we held that, under the Washington Constitution, the exception applies only where there is a reasonable basis to believe that the arrestee poses a safety risk or that the vehicle contains evidence of the crime of arrest that could be concealed or destroyed, and that these concerns exist at the time of the search. 167 Wash.2d 379, 394-95, 219 P.3d 651 (2009); see Valdez, 167 Wash.2d at 777, 224 P.3d 751 (A warrantless search of an automobile is permissible under the search incident to arrest exception when that search is necessary to preserve officer safety or prevent destruction or concealment of evidence of the crime of arrest.). ¶ 17 In sum, prior to Gant and Patton, we had interpreted the state and federal constitutions to permit warrantless automobile searches incident to arrest whether or not the arrestee had been secured. While the Gant majority may be correct that the question was an open one before the United States Supreme Court, that was not the case in Washington. Gant and Patton constituted a change in law in Washington.