OK. Looks like the US Supreme Court decision in ARIZONA V GRANT (GRANT) means that it is no longer a given that your vehicle can be searched as a consequence of your arrest. Grant say that if you are not in arms reach of your car at the time of arrest, it cannot be lawfully searched. HOWEVER, I'm not sure what GRANT would change for the 99.9% of arrests where you are driving. IANAL, so please correct me if needed.

"Supreme Court ruled [...] that police may conduct a warrantless vehicle search incident to an arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or the officers have reasonable belief that “evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.”
(http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?tit ... na_v._Gant)

For you detail folks, and Missourians:

Here's the decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf
And here's the oral arguments: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... 07-542.pdf

Both are intersting, but don't tell us how Grant has or has not changed police behavior during and after an arrest. Does anyone have access to any local departmental guidance?

This is just gonna be walked all over. Or maybe side stepped would me more accurate.

A little sarcasm...but I can definitely see it happen...

Police Officer: OK. Up against the car! Please place your hands on the vehicle (Does stop and frisk for "officer's safety").

After pleasantries....

Police Officer: You're under arrest.

Of course, since you were just up against the car the officer can search the car incident to arrest....

From my research this is actually a game changer. If you are asked to exit your vehicle and asked to put your hands on the trunk for a terry pat, asked to sit or stand away from the vehicle, placed in an LEO cruiser or placed in any other position (handcuffed) which renders the passenger compartment of the vehicle beyond arms reach, the LEO must obtain a warrant to search your vehicle. There is no longer a vehicle search incident to arrest unless it is conducted with you in immediate proximity of the passenger compartment of your vehicle as at that time any item in the vehicle would be deemed a potential danger to the officer. Obviously there are exigent circumstances like a ticking bomb inside, etc. and in plain sight still applies.

There was another case recently (not sure where right now but I have it on file) where an officer removed a cigarette pack from a purse and searched the contents. His defense was his security as the woman owner reached into the purse to the pack after the officer asked her not to open her purse. The judge threw it out referencing the Gant decision stating that once the pack was removed from the purse and was in the officer's possession any existing danger to the officer was no longer present. He must obtain a warrant to search the contents.

I think if you spend some time researching subsequent cases you will agree that this case was a leap in the direction of restoring our rights.

Here's a few cases:

Under Gant, the search incident of defendant's backpack was unreasonable because he was handcuffed and could not access it. Under Second Circuit authority, "exigent circumstances [can] justify a warrantless search of a closed container only when the police have reason to believe a container is concealing a dangerous instrumentality and that the hidden danger poses an imminent threat to either the arresting officers or the surrounding public." Here, the police did not have that either. "Special exigencies" may permit it. United States v. Morillo, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94396 (E.D. N.Y. October 9, 2009), USMJ R&R 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94421 (E.D. N.Y. August 12, 2009):

Arrest for expired registration and lack of insurance cannot justify a search incident of the car's interior under Gant, in a case GVRed after Gant (reversing prior holding). State v. Carter, 2009 N.C. App. LEXIS 1574 (September 15, 2009), on remand from Carter v. North Carolina, 129 S. Ct. 2158, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1153 (U.S., 2009).

Officers had RS that defendant was involved in a drug offense and had prior weapons offenses. That justified his patdown. The search of defendant’s car trunk would be unreasonable under Gant, but it was justified by the automobile exception becaue of probable cause. United States v. Arnold, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87215 (E.D. Mich. September 23, 2009).*

Defendant was arrested after he walked out of a bedroom, and a search incident was conducted of the bedroom. The court finds that Gant does not apply to houses. United States v. Harris, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86269 (N.D. Ill. September 21, 2009)*:

Motion to reconsider under Gant denied because the defendant concedes his stop and patdown were valid, and removing a spoon from his pocket was valid, and drug residue on the spoon gave justification for a search of his car under the automobile exception too. United States v. Herman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83243 (E.D. Wash. September 11, 2009).*

This vehicle search was governed by the automobile exception and not Gant because the officers saw ammunition on the front seat, and that gave PC to look for a gun it would match. United States v. Black, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77111 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2009).*

Search incident of defendant's gym bag was invalid under Gant because defendant arrested in a taxicab, handcuffed, the bag was in the taxi, and then the officers decided to search the gym bag. Suppression hearing was pre-Gant, and it was rebriefed after Gant. United States v. Allison, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73808 (S.D. Iowa July 24, 2009):

Search of a cigarette packet seized for officer safety from defendant's purse was unreasonable because the threat (also admittedly a close call) was neutralized by seizure. State v. Johnson, 2009 Kan. App. LEXIS 849 (October 9, 2009):