Comments on: Arizona v. Gant http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html the tao of criminal defense trial lawyering Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:16:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Kristina B. Murphree http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html/comment-page-1#comment-9886 Kristina B. Murphree Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:05:10 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html#comment-9886 Do you think that a written police towing/inventory search policy that requires the police to stop inventorying a vehicle if they find an item of contraband and obtain a search warrant creates a due process right that the policy will be followed? Do you have any research suggestions? Do you think that a written police towing/inventory search policy that requires the police to stop inventorying a vehicle if they find an item of contraband and obtain a search warrant creates a due process right that the policy will be followed? Do you have any research suggestions?

]]> By: Michael Deppe http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html/comment-page-1#comment-9601 Michael Deppe Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:33:41 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html#comment-9601 It would seem that a discovery request to have the inventory sheet or tow sheet produced would give fruit for a good argument if the inventory was incomplete and it could be demonstrated that it was mereely a ruse to search. Police Officers are lazy when it comes to paperwork. Checking to see if the last cars that were towed by the officer had an inventory sheet and how complete it was could cetainly show the sheets were only made when it was necessary to sieze evidence. Just a thought. It would seem that a discovery request to have the inventory sheet or tow sheet produced would give fruit for a good argument if the inventory was incomplete and it could be demonstrated that it was mereely a ruse to search. Police Officers are lazy when it comes to paperwork. Checking to see if the last cars that were towed by the officer had an inventory sheet and how complete it was could cetainly show the sheets were only made when it was necessary to sieze evidence. Just a thought.

]]> By: Mark Bennett http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html/comment-page-1#comment-9569 Mark Bennett Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:53:56 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html#comment-9569 Probably not. That sounds like an inventory search (assuming that the cops were permitted to impound the car, and had an inventory policy). Probably not. That sounds like an inventory search (assuming that the cops were permitted to impound the car, and had an inventory policy).

]]> By: Larry Maxwell http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html/comment-page-1#comment-9568 Larry Maxwell Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:42:48 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html#comment-9568 Just seeking clarification. If the subject of a traffic violation (taillight was out) also had an outstanding warrant (Drunk and disorderly in another state), and, upon seeing the the officers placed him under arrest such that the vehicle was impounded and searched, would that fall under the Gant protection? Just seeking clarification. If the subject of a traffic violation (taillight was out) also had an outstanding warrant (Drunk and disorderly in another state), and, upon seeing the the officers placed him under arrest such that the vehicle was impounded and searched, would that fall under the Gant protection?

]]> By: Mo http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html/comment-page-1#comment-9200 Mo Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:03:03 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html#comment-9200 Kris, Just wanted to shed some light on your question about being arrested for a traffic offense. Many states and municipalities have their traffic laws and enforce them differently. Heres an example: you are arrested in New York City for driving after your privilege to do so has been suspended in NY State, when you get stopped you will be arrested. There is no other alternative (it is a must arrest situation). If this happens somewhere upsate NY in the boonies you may be released on a summons to appear at court on a future date, the officer has discretion where in the city they dont. This came about in the city because of the people, not the cops or the government like many would lead you to believe. There were cases where people were getting into accidents and then it was found they would have a ridculous amount of suspensions (in one case over 100 suspensions on like 70 different dates), and were still driving. Of course the press had a field day and it was splattered on every front page of evey newspaper. You can only imagine the people went crazy! They demanded something be done to deter people who were suspended from driving and hurting people, hence the mandatory arrest policy. Washington D.C. is another jurisdiction where could care less about vehicle and traffic laws and hurt innocent on a regular basis. I hope I've helped clear a few things up. On another note, be careful what you wish for. Anyone intimately familiar with Miranda vs Arizona knows what I mean. that landmark case has an ironic history. Miranda had his conviction appealed on the basis that one should be read their rights and it should be clear they understand those rights before being questioned. Miranda was stabbed after that landmark decision during a card game with some shady characters. When the cops arrived they cuffed the suspect and read him his Miranda rights (i'm sure with a smile), making sure the bad guy understood he did not have to say a word about what had happened. The bad guy opted to take the cops up on his right to remain silent and eventually beat his case due to lack of evidence (I'm sure a confession may have brought about a different outcome). Like I said, careful what you wish for ;) Kris,

Just wanted to shed some light on your question about being arrested for a traffic offense. Many states and municipalities have their traffic laws and enforce them differently. Heres an example: you are arrested in New York City for driving after your privilege to do so has been suspended in NY State, when you get stopped you will be arrested. There is no other alternative (it is a must arrest situation). If this happens somewhere upsate NY in the boonies you may be released on a summons to appear at court on a future date, the officer has discretion where in the city they dont. This came about in the city because of the people, not the cops or the government like many would lead you to believe. There were cases where people were getting into accidents and then it was found they would have a ridculous amount of suspensions (in one case over 100 suspensions on like 70 different dates), and were still driving. Of course the press had a field day and it was splattered on every front page of evey newspaper.

You can only imagine the people went crazy! They demanded something be done to deter people who were suspended from driving and hurting people, hence the mandatory arrest policy. Washington D.C. is another jurisdiction where could care less about vehicle and traffic laws and hurt innocent on a regular basis.

I hope I’ve helped clear a few things up. On another note, be careful what you wish for. Anyone intimately familiar with Miranda vs Arizona knows what I mean. that landmark case has an ironic history. Miranda had his conviction appealed on the basis that one should be read their rights and it should be clear they understand those rights before being questioned. Miranda was stabbed after that landmark decision during a card game with some shady characters. When the cops arrived they cuffed the suspect and read him his Miranda rights (i’m sure with a smile), making sure the bad guy understood he did not have to say a word about what had happened. The bad guy opted to take the cops up on his right to remain silent and eventually beat his case due to lack of evidence (I’m sure a confession may have brought about a different outcome). Like I said, careful what you wish for ;)

]]> By: Mark Bennett http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html/comment-page-1#comment-8503 Mark Bennett Sat, 09 May 2009 20:31:09 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html#comment-8503 I apologize to those whose comments took unconscionably long to post. I will be more attentive in the future. I apologize to those whose comments took unconscionably long to post. I will be more attentive in the future.

]]> By: Mark Bennett http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html/comment-page-1#comment-8502 Mark Bennett Sat, 09 May 2009 20:30:30 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html#comment-8502 I imagine their response will be just like their response to any other unavoidable bad fact: some of them will accept it and dismiss; others will woodshed their cops to make up new reasons for searches. I imagine their response will be just like their response to any other unavoidable bad fact: some of them will accept it and dismiss; others will woodshed their cops to make up new reasons for searches.

]]> By: mike http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html/comment-page-1#comment-8497 mike Sat, 09 May 2009 15:45:54 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html#comment-8497 What will be the likely response of prosecutors to numerous current cases on the docket that involve an illegal search incident to arrest ala Gant (i.e. a traffic offender arrested and then subjected to search of car and contraband is found )? Will prosecutors dismiss these cases for the sake of judicial economy and fair play? What will be the likely response of prosecutors to numerous current cases on the docket that involve an illegal search incident to arrest ala Gant (i.e. a traffic offender arrested and then subjected to search of car and contraband is found )?
Will prosecutors dismiss these cases for the sake of judicial economy and fair play?

]]> By: CJA http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html/comment-page-1#comment-8314 CJA Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:19:13 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html#comment-8314 California vehicle allows an officer to impound any car controlled (doesn't have to be driven) by the arrestee. VC 22651(h). In other words, who needs the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement in California. Officers can impound and search the legally parked vehicles of the arrested, and do everyday. California vehicle allows an officer to impound any car controlled (doesn’t have to be driven) by the arrestee. VC 22651(h). In other words, who needs the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement in California. Officers can impound and search the legally parked vehicles of the arrested, and do everyday.

]]> By: Benjamin Wolf http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html/comment-page-1#comment-8276 Benjamin Wolf Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:55:15 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2009/04/arizona-v-gant.html#comment-8276 I wrote a post on the meaning of Gant’s new test relative to New York law. I was particularly interested because I wanted to know how it would relate to New York’s interpretation its State Constitution which has been stricter on the police than SCOTUS’ Belton decision. I wanted to know whether the Gant decision made the Supreme Courts SILA rules stricter than, more lenient than, or the same as New York’s existing law. I concluded that even after the Gant decision, their rules are still more lenient than New York’s and therefore New York SILA jurisprudence will probably not be affected by Gant. The link follows: http://schlissellaw.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/after-gant-is-new-yorks-car-search-rule-stricter-more-lenient-or-juuuust-right/ I wrote a post on the meaning of Gant’s new test relative to New York law. I was particularly interested because I wanted to know how it would relate to New York’s interpretation its State Constitution which has been stricter on the police than SCOTUS’ Belton decision. I wanted to know whether the Gant decision made the Supreme Courts SILA rules stricter than, more lenient than, or the same as New York’s existing law. I concluded that even after the Gant decision, their rules are still more lenient than New York’s and therefore New York SILA jurisprudence will probably not be affected by Gant. The link follows:

http://schlissellaw.wordpress.com/2009/04/27/after-gant-is-new-yorks-car-search-rule-stricter-more-lenient-or-juuuust-right/

]]>