Consistent with the holding in Thorn- ton v.United States, 541 U. S. 615 (2004), and following the suggestion in JUSTICE SCALIA’s opinion concurring in the judgment in that case, id., at 632, we also conclude that circumstances unique to the automobile context 100% Unique Essays On April 21, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v.Gant, 1 in which the Court announced new, narrow rules as to when law enforcement officers properly may search the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle incident to the arrest of one of its occupants. On April 21, 2009, the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, a case of great significance to the police. Because Gant could not have accessed his car to retrieve weapons or evidence at the time of the search, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, as defined in Chimel v. The following is PoliceOne Columnist Ken Wallentine’s take on the top cases of the 2008-2009 term (Arizona v. Gant, Arizona v. Johnson, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Herring v. United States, and others) as well as his overview of cases already accepted by the Supreme Court … 1710, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) decision from the United States Supreme Court was an unmitigated disaster…for police. It was a huge set back for car searches and officer safety. Free law essay examples to help law students. Arizona v. Gant As the Supreme Court of the United States held, "Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest." 07-542. Arizona police went to the home of Rodney Gant in search of drugs and to arrest him for failing to appear in court. In Chimel v. ARIZONA V. GANT 556 U. S. ____ (2009) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of arizona [April 21, 2009] Justice Alito, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join, and with whom Justice Breyer joins except as to Part II–E, dissenting. Arizona v. Gant; 566 U.S. 332 (2009) Arizona v. Gant. ARIZONA, PETITIONER v. RODNEY JOSEPH GANT. When they arrived at the house, Gant was not there (though two other people were in his home, one of whom was in possession of a crack pipe) but while the police were still at the house Gant pulled into the driveway. But, Justices Scalia and Ginsburg used the case to express their doubts about the wisdom of the Belton rule, as did then-Justice O’Connor, so the issue was ripe for re-consideration when Gant came along. 566 U.S. 332 (2009) (Case Syllabus edited by the Author) Respondent Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car before officers searched his car and found cocaine in a jacket pocket. In order to understand the significance of Gant, it is useful to put the case in the context of earlier case law. Free Essay on Arizona v. Gant at lawaspect.com. But if it was a loss for officers can Arizona v. Gant … 2 ARIZONA v. GANT Opinion of the Court rior of the vehicle. Then, in Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), the Court extended the Belton rule to a recent occupant of a car who was arrested. Part 1: Gant And The Aftermath The Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct.