New York v. Belton
33 Analyses of this case by attorneys
Exclusionary Rule: Good-Faith Reliance on Judicial Precedence
Wisconsin State Public DefenderJune 26, 2011
Willie Gene Davis v. U.S., USSC No. 09-11328, 6/16/11… The question here is whether to apply this sanction when the police conduct a search in compliance with binding precedent that is later overruled. Because suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct in these circ*mstances, and because it would come at a high cost to both the truth and the public safety, we hold that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.The holding of New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, that the police may search a car incident to arrest, was subsequently clarified (“overruled” may go too far) to permit such a search only if the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). What happens, then, if the police conduct a search permissible at the time under binding local interpretation of Belton but which turns out to be, while the case wends its way through the courts, impermissible under Gant? Short version: the criminal should not go free because the justices have blundered.
Capital Defense Weekly, May 24, 2004
Capital Defense NewsletterMay 24, 2004
Petitioner was charged with federal drug and firearms violations. In denying his motion to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unconstitutional search, the District Court found, inter alia, the automobile search valid under New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, in which this Court held that, when a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile’s occupant, the Fourth Amendment allows the officer to search the vehicle’s passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest, id., at 460. Petitioner appealed his conviction, arguing that Belton was limited to situations where the officer initiated contact with an arrestee while he was still in the car.
On guns in cars, SCOW’s grab exceeds its reach
Wisconsin State Public DefenderApril 14, 2018
And where the cop, DA, and jury agree you can’t reach it.But, says Grandberry, in the context of the Fourth Amendment, SCOTUS has declared that the entire passenger compartment is “within reach” such that it can be subject to a search for weapons. See, e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460 (1981). So, for an SUV or station wagon or other trunkless vehicle, there’s no legal place to put one’s lawfully possessed handgun.
CA8: Search of def’s car for gun was reasonable as a SI even though def was arrested away from the car
Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallMarch 20, 2017
See Gant, 556 U.S. at 339, 343 (discussing the different policy interests supporting each exception). The first exception is grounded in the “safety and evidentiary interests” recognized in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969), and New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1981), abrogated by Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485. See Gant, 556 U.S. at 339-41, 346.
Search and Seizure - Incident to Arrest
Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014)The Supreme Court decided that a cell phone may not be searched incident to arrest. Neither officer safety, nor the need to preserve evidence justifies the need to dispense with the warrant requirement.Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004)In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), the Court held that the police may conduct a search incident to arrest of the interior of a car whenever an occupant is arrested. In this case, the Court concluded that the same rationale allows the police to search a vehicle, even if the occupant is arrested by the police after exiting the car and is not within reach of the interior of the vehicle.
Search and Seizure - Automobiles
Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015
Brendlin v. California, 127 S.Ct. 2400 (2007)When the police stop a vehicle that has a driver and passenger, the passenger is also “detained” for fourth amendment purposes. Therefore, if there was no basis for the stop, the passenger may contest the admissibility of any fruits of that stop (for which he has standing), such as a statement he made, or evidence seized from his person or personal belongings.Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004)In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), the Court held that the police may conduct a search incident to arrest of the interior of a car whenever an occupant is arrested. In this case, the Court concluded that the same rationale allows the police to search a vehicle, even if the occupant is arrested by the police after exiting the car and is not within reach of the interior of the vehicle.
US Supreme Court Approves Warrantless DNA Collection After Arrest for Serious Crime
Thompson & Knight LLPJune 3, 2013
First, he notes: "I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection." Then, noting his hope that his dissent will someday become law he adds this footnote:Compare New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (suspicionless seach of a car permitted upon arrest of the driver), with Arizona v. Grant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (on second thought, no).-- Rich Phillips, Thompson & Knight
Search incident to arrest; unlawful possession of firearm, § 941.29
Wisconsin State Public DefenderDecember 19, 2012
The warrantless search of the bedroom is, in my view, exactly the type of search Chimel explains is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment….Neither the majority nor the dissent discusses Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009), which Sanders cited in his brief and which arguably supports the dissent’s conclusion. Gant rejected the rule many courts adopted after New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), allowing the passenger area of a car to be searched incident to the arrest of the driver or a passenger even when the arrestee was handcuffed and placed in a squad car. In doing soGantemphasized that searches incident to arrest must hew to Chimel’s limitation of the area within an arrestee’s immediate control to the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence: That limitation, which continues to define the boundaries of the exception, ensures that the scope of a search incident to arrest is commensurate with its purposes of protecting arresting officers and safeguarding any evidence of the offense of arrest that an arrestee might conceal or destroy.
Vehicle Search, Reasonableness
Tieber Law OfficeF. Martin TieberOctober 30, 2012
He appealed, claiming that the officer’s search of his car was improper under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). Gant had overruled the bright line rule allowing a search of the passenger compartment incident to arrest under New York v Belton, 453 US 454 (1981). Gant held that such a search is reasonable only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Vehicle Search, Objective Reliance, Good Faith
Tieber Law OfficeF. Martin TieberOctober 30, 2012
The state appealed. The COA reversed and remanded in reliance on New York v Belton, 453 US 454 (1981). Defendant then appealed, and the Michigan supreme court reversed the COA decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), which overturned parts of Belton.
