The U.S. Supreme Court Gets It Right in Arizona v. Gant: Justifications for Rules Protect Constitutional Rights

Authors

Shenequa L. Grey, Southern University Law Center

First Page

532

Document Type

Article

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how the justifications or rationales for legal principles form the basis for compliance with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and that therefore, failure to comply with those justifications leads to unconstitutional searches and seizures. Strict compliance with the underlying justifications prevents the courts from circumventing the Constitution by establishing a rule, then expanding it beyond its intended purpose. This article demonstrates and reiterates that compliance with the underlying justifications for establishing rules is essential to protecting individual constitutional rights. In addressing these issues, Part I of this article gives an overview of Arizona v. Gant, setting forth the facts of the case and the issues presented before the Court relative to the search incident to a lawful arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Part II examines the underlying justifications for developing the scope of the search incident to a lawful arrest exception to the warrant requirement in general, and as it relates to vehicles. Part III discusses theories offered to support expansion of the rule to include automatic searches of vehicles even when the original underlying justifications are not present and finds that the theories do not support expansion of the rule. Part IV gives an application of the law as defined in Gant to its facts to conclude that the decision is consistent with precedent interpreting the applicable law. Part V discusses the trend of the Court to revert back to the original justifications of rules with specific emphasis on Hudson v. Michigan. It further discusses justifications of other rules articulated by the Court in developing exceptions to the warrant requirement and shows how compliance with those justifications is essential to the constitutionality of the search or seizure and to ultimately protecting individual constitutional rights.

Recommended Citation

Shenequa L. Grey, The U.S. Supreme Court Gets It Right in Arizona v. Gant: Justifications for Rules Protect Constitutional Rights, 23 St. Thomas L. Rev. 532 (2011).
Available at: https://scholarship.stu.edu/stlr/vol23/iss4/3