Social Realities and Its Impact on the CRIMINAL Case of Law Enforcement Processes

Abstract

In New York v. Belton, the United States Supreme Court decided the subject about the recent criticism from scholars and Supreme Court Justices, alike, calling for the Court to re-examine its broad construction of the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures in the vehicle-search context. The Court seized the opportunity to revisit Belton in Arizona v. Gant. While narrowing the scope of the search incident to arrest exception in some situations, the Gant holding extended its scope in others, perhaps straying from the principles of the Fourth Amendment. The current study was organized in the following manner: First, summarizes the case, including the facts, issue, holding, legal rule and reasoning; second, reviews the social realities that affect the ruling of the case; Finally, addresses the impact of the decision on law enforcement processes and/or social behavior. The present study relied on the several research paper and book, and media stories. The current study focused the review Arizona v. Gant, and the purpose of the present research is to provide an overview of the social realities that affect the case and the impact of the case on law enforcement processes. Prior to the Court’s decision in Gant, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was in a state of muddled, silent chaos. Supreme Court precedent had been stretched beyond its “breaking point.” In an effort to resolve unanswered questions surrounding the search incident to arrest exception the Court accepted Gant for review. By leaving the existing exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement intact, the Court did not handcuff law enforcement into overly stringent constraints. Instead, police officers have wide discretion in their creative selection of alternative exceptions in rationalizing further searches. Gant presented the Court with an opportunity to establish a “bright-line” rule in order to secure the safeguards of the Fourth Amendment and provide guidance to police for conducting searches incident to arrests. The study’s review showed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Gant cuts two ways: First, it returns to a narrow search incident to arrest exception for non-evidentiary crimes, although its wording might result in confused application of the rule by lower courts; Second, it reflects a continuing trend placing higher value on successful prosecution of suspected criminals than on the intent of the Fourth Amendment’s framers. Implications for warrantless searches and seizures in the vehicle-search context are discussed.