Muhammad Arshad

Student Name Professor Name Subject Code Dated Arizona Vs Gant Case Who is defendant in your case? The defendant in Arizona v. Gant 556 U.S. 332 (2009) is Gregory Gant who was pulled over for a traffic violation by an Arizona police officer in 2007, during which time he was arrested for driving on a suspended license and locked in a patrol car before being searched and then charged with drug offenses. In his subsequent criminal trial, Gant filed a motion to suppress all evidence stemming from his arrest and search, arguing that he had been unlawfully detained by officers prior to being placed in custody. Who is the opposing party? The Supreme Court case Arizona v. Gant 556 U.S. 332 (2009) includes the opposing party Arizona and Richard Gant (respondent). The ruling was issued on April 21, 2009 by the US Supreme Court, ultimately allowing officers to search a vehicle incident to arrest if they have probable cause to believe there is evidence in the vehicle that has been or will be destroyed. From which state did the case originate? The case originated in the state of Arizona. The Supreme Court was charged with deciding whether police may search the interior of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior compartment by reaching through an open window or door, where there is no risk that evidence will be destroyed or hidden, and where the justification for searching the car existed prior to taking the suspect into custody. Specifically, we must decide whether a warrantless search of an automobile based on probable cause falls within one of two exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement: (1) vehicles lawfully stopped on public thoroughfares; or (2) automobiles impounded for serious traffic violations. United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 809–810 (1982). We hold that it does not. What is the justice's name who wrote the decision (opinion) in your case? Justice Stevens delivered the opinion in favor of the case's State court holding (5-4). Justice Kennedy did not concur in the court's judgment but instead wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by three other justices (the vote count would then be 4-3). Title: Concurrence and Dissent, State v. Justice Stevens wrote an opinion concurring with part II of Justice Kennedy’s dissent, explaining that he believed that even if Arizona’s search protocol were unconstitutional under New York v. Belton, it could still survive under Whren v. He also noted that, unlike in Belton, there was no reason to believe that any exigency existed to justify searching respondent’s car before obtaining a warrant. Justice Kennedy dissented from part I of Justice Stevens’ opinion, arguing that Arizona had violated its own procedures for inventory searches as well as those established by New York v. Belton. He also argued that both parts I and II of Justice Stevens’ opinion should be rejected because they misinterpreted precedent from two prior cases. Was there a dissenting opinion in the case? If so, what did it argue contrary to the majority opinion? Yes, there was a dissenting opinion in the case: The dissent relied on the trial court's determination that respondent had placed his car keys in the trunk during his encounter with officers, and thus was not seized for purposes of Miranda until he was required to reopen the trunk after it had been closed by one officer to obtain the keys. Even if he had not been seized, however, those facts would have justified an arrest without a warrant under our decision in California v. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). It is also worth noting that even assuming arguendo that some level of intrusion occurred before any law enforcement action could be taken. What was the subject (issue) in your assigned case? Please discuss The subject (issue) in the assigned case was about if the police could search a suspect without reasonable suspicion (belief) that he was armed and dangerous, which is required by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The Supreme Court ruled that they could not search a suspect in a case called Arizona v. Gant 556 U.S. 332 (2009). It was whether or not a police officer can search someone's car after arresting them for driving on a suspended license. A defendant named Chad Gant challenged whether an officer who arrests someone for driving on a suspended license can conduct an immediate pat-down and inventory search of their vehicle, based only on probable cause to arrest for driving on a suspended license. The Supreme Court answered yes, that such searches are constitutional. This is because there were two separate issues here: One being did you have to be arrested before being searched and another being did you have to be searched immediately after being arrested? As it turns out, it doesn't matter when you're searched so long as you're seized (arrested), then a warrantless search incident to your arrest is permitted. References Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). US Supreme Court-. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Supreme Court of United States-.