The Courts and the Constitution

1
The Courts and the Constitution
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (April 21, 2009)
2

• Do you know you have a constitutional right to
  privacy?
• What happens if your right to privacy has been
  violated by the government?
• How would you challenge an intrusion into your
  privacy that is against the law?

3

• Today, we are going to see how the courts
  determine whether someones constitutional right
  to privacy has been violated, specifically in the
  context of police officers searching a vehicle
  without a warrant

4
JUDGES

• If you were responsible for selecting all of the
  judges in Florida, what would you look for?
• Knowledge
• Skills
• Disposition/Qualities

5
JUDGES

• How are judges different from other elected
  officials such as legislators?

6
JUDGES

• Should judges be influenced by political
  pressures when deciding a case?
• Would you want a judge to make a decision based
  on the law or how the public might react to the
  decision?
• Should judges do what is legally right or should
  they do what is popular?

7
JUDGES

• JUDGES MUST FOLLOW
• FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
• STATE CONSTITUTION
• STATUTES
• RULES
• HIGHER COURT DECISIONS (PRECEDENT)

8
JUDGES

• So, a judge cannot decide a case based on how
  he/she feels about an issue.

9
JUDGES

• If a judge does not follow the existing law the
  decision makes, he/she is subject to review by an
  appellate court.
• All courts are subject to review by a higher
  court except the highest court in the country
  the Supreme Court of the United States.

10

• Today, you will be a justice on the U.S. Supreme
  Court and decide a real case.

11

• Today, you will judge whether the police
  violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
  Constitution when they searched someones vehicle
  without a warrant

12
FOURTH AMENDMENT

• But first
• You need to know about the Fourth Amendment to
  the U.S. Constitution.

13
FOURTH AMENDMENT

• The Text
• The right of the people to be secure in their
  persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
  unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
  violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
  probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
  and particularly describing the place to be
  searched, and persons or things to be seized.

14
FOURTH AMENDMENT

• Does the Fourth Amendment mean that whenever
  police officers search someones person or
  possession they must have a warrant?
• Lets look at what the United States Supreme
  Court has said about the issue

15
FOURTH AMENDMENT

• searches conducted outside the judicial
  process, without prior approval by judge or
  magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the
  Fourth Amendment-subject only to a few
  established and well-delineated exceptions. Katz
  v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967).

16
FOURTH AMENDMENT

• One of the most important exceptions to the
  warrant requirement is a search incident to
  lawful arrest.
• But what does this exception mean?

17
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

• Police officers arrived at the home of Ted Chimel
  to arrest him for burglary. When they arrived
  Chimel was not there, but his wife was, so the
  police ushered her into the house and waited for
  Chimel.
• When Chimel arrived they served him with the
  arrest warrant and asked if they could look
  around, but Chimel objected. The police
  officers searched the house anyway on the basis
  of a lawful arrest. No search warrant existed.

18
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

• The officers searched the entire house for an
  hour, mainly looking for items in plain sight.
  In the master bedroom and the sewing room, the
  officers instructed the wife to physically move
  contents of the drawers from side to side so the
  police could view any items that may have come
  from the burglary.
• As a direct result of the search, the officers
  found and seized a number of incriminating items
  that were later used against the defendant at
  trial.

19
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

• When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the
  arresting officer to search the person arrested
  to remove any weapons that the person might seek
  to use to resist arrest or effect escape.
  Otherwise, the officers safety could be
  endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. It
  is also reasonable for the arresting officer to
  search for and seize any evidence on the
  arrestees person to prevent its concealment or
  destruction. The area into which an arrestee
  could reach to grab a weapon or evidentiary items
  is governed by the same a rule.

20
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

• The Court held that the search incident to
  arrest exception was necessary to protect the
  arresting officer.
• The search that follows the arrest is limited to
  areas where the detainee may be able to
  physically reach and obtain a weapon.
• The Court limited the search area to the
  arrestees person and the area within his
  immediate control.

21
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

• The Court and held that the search was in
  violation of the Fourth Amendment.
• The search was unreasonable because it went far
  beyond the petitioners person and the area from
  within which he might have obtained either a
  weapon or something that could have been used as
  evidence against him.

22
Searches Incident to Arrest

• We learn from Chimel that there are two types of
  items the Court is concerned about the detainee
  obtaining that justify a search incident to
  arrest
• Weapons that can harm the detaining officer
• Evidence that may be related to a crime

23

• What happens when the search is incident to a
  traffic stop arrest?
• Do the same rules apply?

24
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 950 (1981)

• In New York v. Belton, the Court considered a
  person in an automobile context.
• A police officer in an unmarked car stopped a
  speeding car with four individuals inside.
• The police officer asked for the license and
  registration of the driver and discovered that no
  one in the car owned the vehicle or was related
  to the owner of the vehicle.

25
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 950 (1981)

• The police smelled burnt marijuana and saw an
  envelope on the floor of the car marked
  Supergold, a name for marijuana in the area.
• The officer ordered the four men out of the car,
  placed each under arrest for possession of
  marijuana, patted them down, and split them up
  into four separate places so they would not be
  able to physically touch each other.

26
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 950 (1981)

• The officer secured the envelope labeled
  Supergold and then read each of the individuals
  their Miranda warnings. He then searched each of
  the detainees and the passenger compartment of
  the stopped vehicle. In the backseat the officer
  secured a jacket, unzipped one of the pockets,
  and discovered cocaine.

27
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 950 (1981)

• The issue before the Court was does the scope of
  a legal search incident to arrest include the
  passenger compartment of the automobile in which
  an arrestee was riding?

28
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 950 (1981)

• What do you think?
• Remember, we learned from Chimel that there are
  two types of items the Court is concerned about
  the detainee obtaining that justify a search
  incident to arrest
• Weapons that can harm the detaining officer
• Evidence that may be related to a crime
• Could the passenger compartment of a car contain
  items that are included in one of these two
  categories?

29
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 950 (1981)

• When a policeman has made a lawful custodial
  arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may,
  as an incident to that arrest, search the
  passenger compartment of that automobile.
• Police may also examine the contents of any
  containers found within the passenger compartment
  because if the passenger compartment is within
  reach of the arrestee, the containers in it be
  within reach. Such a container may be searched
  whether it is open or closed.

30
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 950 (1981)

• The passenger compartment of the vehicle, and the
  jacket inside the vehicle, were within the
  arrestees immediate control within the meaning
  of the Chimel case, and the search did NOT
  violate the Fourth Amendment.

31

• You saw just how the United State Supreme Court
  applied the Fourth Amendment to specific
  situations, now you give it a try.

32
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• Handout C is a case in which the United States
  Supreme Court had to decide whether the police
  violated the Fourth Amendment.
• Read and highlight or circle the important facts.

33
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• Before we discover how the United States Supreme
  Court decided Gant, ask yourself the following
  questions and provide written answers based upon
  the cases we have discussed

34
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• Did the police have a legitimate concern that
  Gant could have obtained one of the two items the
  Court listed as reasons for a search incident to
  arrest?
• Remember, the two items are
• Weapons that can harm the detaining officer
• Evidence that may be related to a crime

35
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• If one of those two items was at issue here, were
  those items within Gants immediate control?

36
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• How are the facts from this case similar to the
  facts from the Belton case?
• How are they different?

37

• Now you are Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Here is the question before the court

38
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• Is the Fourth Amendment violated when a police
  officer searches the vehicle of a detainee after
  the detainee is handcuffed, locked in the back of
  a patrol vehicle, and thus unable to access any
  portion of the vehicle?

39
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• Individually answer the question
• Yes or No based on the facts of the case, the
  constitution, and case precedent.
• -Give 3 reasons in writing.

40
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• If you answer Yes you are deciding for
  Richard Joseph Gant.
• _____________________________
• If you answer No you are deciding for the
  State of Arizona.

41
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• Form groups of 5
• Choose a Chief Justice
• Chief Justice Maintains Order
• Poll the Justices. How did each one of you
  answer the questions and why?
• Try to reach to a unanimous decision. Did the
  police officers actions violate the Fourth
  Amendment?
• You have 10 minutes to discuss then take a final
  poll.

42
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• After each Court decides
• Bring the Chief Justices to the front of the room
  to report on the decision of each group
• Tally results and announce

43
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• Constitutional Question
• Is the Fourth Amendment violated when a police
  officer searches the vehicle of a detainee after
  the detainee is handcuffed, locked in the back of
  a patrol vehicle, and thus unable to access any
  portion of the vehicle?

44
The Warrantless Vehicle Search

• What did the real U.S. Supreme Court decide and
  why?

45
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (April 21, 2009)

• The United States Supreme Court held that the
  search of Gants vehicle violated the Fourth
  Amendment.

46
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (April 21, 2009)

• The Court revisited its opinion in Chimel,
  reiterating the two justifications for a search
  incident to arrest
• In Chimel, we held that a search incident to
  arrest may only include the arrestees person
  and the area within his immediate control
  construing that phrase to mean the area from
  within which he might gain possession of a weapon
  or destructible evidence.

47
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (April 21, 2009)

• If there is no possibility that an arrestee
  could reach into the area that law enforcement
  officers seek to search, both justifications for
  the search-incident-to-arrest exception are
  absent and the rule does not apply.

48
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (April 21, 2009)

• The Chimel rationale authorizes police to
  search a vehicle incident to arrest only when the
  arrestee is unsecured and within reaching
  distance of the passenger compartment at the time
  of the search.

49
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (April 21, 2009)

• This case is distinguished from Belton because in
  Belton the four individuals were unsecure and the
  police officer was outnumbered four to one, so
  the risk of one of the detainees posing a threat
  to the officer was real.
• Here, the police officers outnumbered the
  detainees five to three, all of them were fully
  detained and handcuffed, and there was little, if
  any, risk of Gant accessing his vehicle.

50
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (April 21, 2009)

• Based on these factors, the Court held that the
  search on Gants vehicle violated the Fourth
  Amendment.