Violent Criminal - Case Study Example

Running head: violent criminal case 29th January Introduction The case of Arizona v. Gant is one of the cases that indicate how a ruling by a senior court can have an impact on a ruling done by lower courts or on a criminal law. In this case, Rodney Gant was involved in a situation that resulted to his arrest by the Arizona state police. During the arrest that took place at one of the yards of Gant’s friend, the patrol cars surrounded Gant and other suspects and handcuffed him. After undertaking a search in his car, the police found a handgun and a bag with cocaine inside it. This paper seeks to discuss how the case of Arizona versus Gant made an impact on the criminal law. The key issue that led to the arrest of Gant was the suspended license. Thus, the search that was undertaken by the police was an aspect through which Gant based his argument in the case. Another issue that was significant in this case was that Gant was handcuffed and forced in the back of the police car where he was locked. According to Gant, there was a violation of the fourth amendment when the police undertook a search of his vehicle. Generally, according to the fourth amendment, police are limited in their duties to undertake a search or seizure of contrabands in the premises of the suspects. The amendment provided individuals with the right against unreasonable seizures of their premises. Additionally, the law maintains that affirmation or an oath must be provided for the search to take place. One of the major aspects of the fourth amendment is that it affects the duties of the law enforcers in that they are limited while performing investigations in places of crimes. Prior to this case, the law enforcers including the police applied the ruling done by other US Supreme courts (Bond V. United States (98-9349) 529 U.S. 334 (2000). Similarly, to provide a wide justification, the police used the precedent set by federal and state courts. While the privacy of individuals as far as search and seizure is catered for by the fourth amendment, the law allows the police to interfere with the privacy matters of a party if the police have sufficient reason of believing that they will find an evidence of a crime committed an a warrant of arrest is issued by the court. Similarly, the privacy concerns of a person can be overridden by the law enforcers if a certain situation justifies the search even though a warrant has not been issued. Having been established in 1961 by the US Supreme Court, the exclusionary rule was a major aspect of the 4th amendment. The exclusionary rule provides the implications if a search violate the 4th amendment. According to the rule, if a court finds that the search that has been undertaken by the police and other law enforcers, any evidence that is seized in whatever form cannot be used as evidence by state or federal courts to prosecute a defendant. While some courts and other parties have for some time supported the use and application of the exclusionary rule, it has up to now been criticized by various commentators in the field of law. According to critics, the rule allows the criminal to go unpunished thus increasing the number of crimes in the society. However, on their part, the supporters of exclusionary rule indicates that by excluding the evidence that has been gotten in an illegal manner the police are deterred from making searches that are illegal. During the trial, Gant argued that the seizure was not called for and that the judge should suppress the cocaine and handgun evidence that was related to his motor vehicle. However, on his part the judge maintained that since the search was carried out during their normal duties and that Gant was arrested based on the warrant that has been issued by the court, the search was reasonable. Thus, the judge denied the motion as given by Gant as the result, he was convicted. Being the democratic right of every individual to make an appeal in a higher court, Gant decided to appeal the ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Court of Appeals made a reversal of the trial and termed the search as unconstitutional Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct 1710 (2009). According to the court, law enforcers may undertake a search on any of the two key situations. Firstly, if the individual arrested is within a reachable distance of his compartment at the time the search is being undertake. Secondly, a search can be undertaken if the car contains adequate evidence that calls for arrest. On the part of unconstitionalism of the search as indicated by the Arizona Court of Appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court also agreed. The Supreme Court supported the argument that there are various exceptions to the need of warrant. For example, the police must depict a high level of concern on the matters of safety or evidence. In the case of Rodney Gant, the two exceptions were not present thus making the search not reasonable. In the same way, the Supreme Court indicated that since it was Gant desire to leave his vehicle, the officer safety and the need to need to preserve the evidence were not of great concern. According to the Supreme Court, the evidence therefore should have been collected before the warrant was issued by the court. Based on the rulings made by the Supreme Court and the decision reached at, the court of appeal indicated that the Supreme Court failed to reference the precedent set by the state and federal courts on the matters relating gathering of vital details and evidence in the locations where police have initiated a traffic stop. In the Gant case, the major issue was whether the seizures and searches that were performed by the police on the vehicle of Rodney Gant after handcuffing him was a violation of the fourth amendment. The Arizona Supreme court held that the rights of Gant as far as the 4th amendment was concerned were violated. In regard to the majority opinion reasoning, the Supreme Court judge who was presiding over the case argued that the warrant to search the vehicle could have been issued if security was guaranteed both for the suspect and the scene (Wells, 2007). Additionally, the court indicated that officer safety is one of the primary issues that make a search reasonable even if a warrant is not issued. In cases where safety issues are not involved, it is the duty of the police to emulate appropriate constitution process to obtain a warrant that he or she needs to undertake a search. Based on the fact that Gant was not involved in a serious crime but only the case of a suspended license, the situation could not make the court to issue a search that did not require a warrant. The case of Gant raised legal issues among the legal personality both within Arizona and outside. Through their dissenting opinions, the legal professionals such as Kennedy, Alito and Breyer used the New York versus Belton case to indicate how the court made an error by overruling the precedent made by the New York v. Belton case. According to this case, the police have the responsibility of searching a vehicle or compartment of an individual who has been arrested lawfully (New York v. Belton - 453 U.S. 454 (1981). The dissenters argued that any law enforcers has right to undertake a search during traffic inspection. Thus, a search was appropriate in the case of Gant. Conclusion Arizona v. Gant case has significantly impacted on the criminal law in US. By limiting the scope of the police in terms of making search on the person they arrest, it is clear that cases in law courts can act as precedent that can be followed by senior courts or even courts of appeal. Being major part in the 4th amendment, the exclusionary rule that was put in place by the US Supreme court has played a key role of putting a distinction of the search requiring warrant and warrantless searches. Despite being resisted by critics, exclusionary rule effective in guiding the courts and the police on search regulations. After being arrested on the ground that he had carried a hand gun and a bag of cocaine, Rodney Gant was convicted by Arizona Supreme Court. Through his appeal in the Arizona Court of Appeal, the judgment was revised and the two courts agreed on the fact that the search was not constitutional. This indicates that the ruling had an impact on the precedents that were used by the state and the federal courts that were used by the courts prior to the Arizona v. Gant case. References Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct 1710 (2009). Available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf Bond V. United States (98-9349) 529 U.S. 334 (2000). Available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-9349.ZS.html New York v. Belton - 453 U.S. 454 (1981). Available at http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/453/454/ Wells, H. (2007). State v. Gant: Departing from the Bright-Line Belton Rule in Automobile Searches Incident to Arrest. Arizona Law Review 49: 1033–1041. Read More