# data[].attributes.headline
Legal Significance: Legal or Illegal Search

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal Significance: Legal or Illegal Search

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court held that police may search the vehicle of its recent occupant after his arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest. With Justice John Paul Stevens writing for the majority and joined by Justices Antonin G. Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court reasoned that "warrantless searches are per se unreasonable" and subject only to a few, very narrow exceptions. Here, Mr. Gant was arrested for a suspended license and the narrow exceptions did not apply to his case.

# data[].attributes.body
Gant was pulled over by police in Arizona for driving on a suspended lisence.

# data[].attributes.body
Rodney Gant was apprehended by Arizona state police on an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. After the officers handcuffed Gant and placed him in their squad car, they went on to search his vehicle, discovering a handgun and a plastic bag of cocaine. At trial, Gant asked the judge to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle because the search had been conducted without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The judge declined Gant's request, stating that the search was a direct result of Gant's lawful arrest and therefore an exception to the general Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The court convicted Gant on two counts of cocaine possession.

# data[].attributes.body
His vehicle was searched and a gun as well as cocaine was found inside.

# data[].attributes.body
The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, holding the search unconstitutional, and the Arizona Supreme Court agreed. The Supreme Court stated that exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement must be justified by concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation. Because Gant left his vehicle voluntarily, the court explained, the search was not directly linked to the arrest and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. In seeking certiorari, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard argued that the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling conflicted with the Court's precedent, as well as precedents set forth in various federal and state courts.

# data[].attributes.body
1.https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/556/332.html
2.https://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/resources/p/casebrief-arizona-v-gant.aspx
3.https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-542

# data[].attributes.body
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, Gant arguing illegal search and seizure.