Arizona v. Gant - Essay Example

Meanwhile, in his house were two persons, and one of them was caught in his possession with a crack pile. The Arizona police officers who responded thought Gant has discerned their arrival but found him at his house driveway. An officer shone a flashlight in his hand over the car and saw Gant in it. When Gant saw the police officer, he voluntarily vacates the said car (“Arizona v. Gant,” n.d.). Meanwhile, the officer immediately gets into the car and made a search. Later, he found some pieces of drugs and a handgun.

Gant was then arrested and brought to the police station for his case. Before the Court could move into the trial proper, the suspect asked the judge regarding the evidence that the Arizona police had acquired into his possession, to declare it unconstitutional. Gant stated that the evidence taken against him was the fruit of an illegal search. He further contended that the police officer should have secured a search warrant before they could enter and search his premises. In addition, he argued that the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment under the provision which strongly prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures (“Arizona v.

Gant,” n.d.). But to his surprise the trial judge denied the motion he has moved. After that, Gant’s case was given a verdict by the trial court. . Gant,” n.d.). Issue: The case has posed a question of whether or not the police officer can arrest the recent occupant of the vehicle who did not make any signs of trouble and get out voluntarily. And in regard to the manner of conducting a search, the issue is whether or not the police can make a search on certain premises without first securing a valid search warrant (“Arizona v.

Gant,” n.d.). Court Decision A. The Court of Appeals gave merit to the case in favor of the suspect. It ruled that the suspect had been denied his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The evidence gathered (drugs and drug paraphernalia) was sought after an illegal search. In addition, the search made of the vehicle did not justify and connect to the arrest of the suspect. Thus, disagreeing with the decision of the trial court and proving the invalidity and unconstitutionality of the search made (“Arizona v.