DWI defense lawyers should be well versed in how Arizona v. Gant impacts DUI cases. In this case, the court reconsidered and modified its holding in New York v. Belton, which applied to the search incident to arrest exception to the 4th amendment warrant requirement to vehicle searches.
In Gant, the court decided that when an officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of a motor vehicle, he may also search the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Of particular interest to DWI defense lawyers, it follows that the officer may also search any containers within the passenger compartment that is within the reach of the arrestee, whether it is open or closed. The court ruled that Belton had been too far reaching, resulting in countless unconstitutional searches of many clients of DWI defense lawyers that had taken place over the 28 year period the ruling held.
The court ruled that an officer’s ability to search all items in a vehicle violated the 4th amendment, giving police officers the right to just rummage through the personal property of anyone they’d like. Before the Gant ruling, a mere traffic violation could result in violations of personal privacy. DWI defense lawyers have more to work with as the personal privacy rights of motorists are better protected.
The generalization underpinning the broad reading of Belton is largely unfounded, as DWI defense lawyers have been arguing for years. We know that articles inside a passenger compartment are rarely within the area into which an arrestee might reach, and blind adherence to Belton will result in countless unconstitutional searches. In Gant, the court ruled that police may only search a passenger compartment if it is within reaching distance of the arrestee or it is reasonable that the compartment contains evidence of the crime.
In assessing Gant’s interest to DWI defense lawyers, there are 2 major issues. First, will courts create an exception to the clients of DWI defense lawyers to Gant, concluding that it is always reasonable that relevant evidence (such as alcoholic containers) may be found in the passenger compartment? Is it reasonable that other bags, backpacks and containers in the car also contain alcoholic beverages and thus be the subject of a search? These are questions DWI defense lawyers must consider.
Legal professionals should take a critical look at the court’s comment in Gant that even when search incident to arrest, a warrantless vehicle search be conducted where another exception to the warrant requirement applies. In cases of the clients of DWI defense lawyers, such a search can be routinely be conducted pursuant to the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement.
It should be noted that an inventory search is easier to challenge, but DWI defense lawyers definitely have more to work with as a result of the Gant case.
Although Gant is not a DUI case, it has lasting implications for those needing DWI defense lawyers. It helps to more clearly delineate your rights in a traffic stop and when your vehicle may or may not be searched. Talk with a lawyer to see how your rights can be used to improve your case. It may sound like a lot of lawyer jargon, but these court rulings help to define your rights as an American citizen.
About the Author
David Michael Cantor is an AV rated (the highest possible rating) lawyer and a Certified Criminal Law Specialist per the Arizona Board of Legal Specialization. For more information about Phoenix DWI Defense Lawyers, visit our site.
