Opinion ID: 1917628
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Movement to Gant

Text: Cases in other jurisdictions began to address the question whether Belton's bright-line rule was being stretched too far, in derogation of Chimel, when passenger compartments were searched after all the occupants of a car had been handcuffed and locked in a squad car away from their vehicle. [56] At the time of the search, could these sequestered occupants still be deemed to occupy space, as Chimel required, under their immediate control, that is, the area from within which [the occupants] might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence? [57] Courts began to say No. [58] That question, as we have seen, eventually came to the Supreme Court in Gant, where a 5-to-4 majority also answered No. For the Court, Justice Stevens wrote: The safety and evidentiary justifications underlying Chimel's reaching-distance rule determine Belton's scope. Accordingly, we hold that Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant's arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle.[ [59] ] Because Debruhl had been arrested for a traffic violation, handcuffed, and held by police officers away from his car while it was searched, the government does not contest that, under Gant, the search violated the Fourth Amendment.