2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Arizona V. Gant Research Paper

2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision on Arizona V. Gant - Research Paper Example This paper provides an analysis on this ruling and the impacts it has on law enforcement practices. The opinion of the court in Arizona vs. Gant ruling was delivered by Justice Stevens. This ruling followed the arrest of Gant after he was found guilty of driving with a suspended driving license. During the arrest, Gant was handcuffed and restrained in the patrol car. The arresting officers went on to search in Gant’s vehicle compartments, where they discovered a gun and cocaine in Gant’s jacket. The question, which formed the basis for argument during the trial, was whether the search was relevant in relation to the warrant of arrest that had been issued by the US security officers. According to the Arizona Supreme Court, circumstances surrounding Gant’s arrest did not qualify officers to conduct a search in his vehicle (Farb, 2009). In order to make a ruling, the Supreme Court revisited Chimel vs. California and New York vs. Belton rulings. The Chimelvs California ruling authorized security officers to make searches on the arrestee and areas close to the arrestee. These searches are authorized during incidents to arrest, and the essence of searching areas immediate to the arrestee is to get hold of weapons and destructible evidence. In the Belton ruling, arresting officers were given the authority to make searches in vehicle compartments and containers within the vehicle. However, searches were limited to lawful arrests and incidents to arrest (Farb, 2009). One notable thing in Belton ruling is that the arresting officers were given the authority to conduct searches, even when the arrestee is handcuffed and restrained in the officer’s vehicle. On the other hand, Chimel’s ruling allowed for a search only when the arrestee is not handcuffed and is close to the vehicle during the search. In these two scenarios, the court was in disagreement with Belton ruling, but took into consideration Chimel’s ruling in making its