6 ms·
>the police have always had broad authority to conduct warrantless, intrusive searches at the time of an actual arrest. Only insofar as needed to protect the a
by ataggart 12y ago
>the police have always had broad authority to conduct warrantless, intrusive searches at the time of an actual arrest.
Only insofar as needed to protect the arresting officer from harm or to prevent the destruction of evidence.[1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant
- tptacek 12y agoThis case pertains only to the search of vehicles, and, as you can see, "to prevent the destruction of evidence" is essentially carte blanche. Interestingly, search incident to arrest might not allow the police to search a vehicle's trunk.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- s_q_b 12y agoYou generally cannot search a vehicle's trunk under search incident to arrest. However, you can impound the vehicle during the arrest, at which point it is subject to an inventory search, without violating the Fourth Amendment.
- tptacek 12y agoAnd the police have (overly) broad discretion in conducting inventory searches, which are also practically carte blanche. However, there are limits; for instance, evidence from a video tape viewed by police during one such search was thrown out.
- s_q_b 12y agoVery interesting. I'd love to read the case on the video tape admissibility. Do you remember the name, or have any information about it? Edit: Can't find the case, but the rationale according to a secondary source is "The search was invalid because the viewing of the tape was unnecessary to ensure its return to the defendant and it did not further any valid objective of an inventory search." So the rationale hangs on the definition of the "valid objectives" of an inventory search. The "objectives [of an inventory search are] preserving the property of the defendant, shielding the police against claims of lost property, and protecting the police and others from any dangerous objects.