Opinion ID: 2445500
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Right to Search a Vehicle Incident to Arrest

Text: Following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gant, there are two separate rationales for permitting the search of an automobile incident to the arrest of a recent occupant. Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. at 1723 (emphasis added). The original justification for a search incident to arrestthat the arrestee might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) does not apply to this case. As the Court held in Gant, [i]f there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, [the Chimel ] justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply. 129 S.Ct. at 1716. [3] Although it does not follow from Chimel, [the Supreme Court] also conclude[d] [in Gant ] that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is `reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.' 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 in the judgment)). In such circumstances, officers may search[] the passenger compartment of an arrestee's vehicle and any containers therein. Id. at 1719 (emphasis added). See, e.g., Dawkins v. United States, 987 A.2d 470, 476 (D.C.2010) (upholding the search of an automobile under this prong of Gant ).