From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arizona v. Gant

Supreme Court of the United States
Feb 25, 2008
552 U.S. 1230 (2008)

Summary

stating question presented as, "Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured?"

Summary of this case from El v. Crain

Opinion

No. 07–542.

2008-02-25

ARIZONA, petitioner, v. Rodney Joseph GANT.


Case below, 216 Ariz. 1, 162 P.3d 640.

Motion of National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for *1444 writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona granted limited to the following question: Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured?


Summaries of

Arizona v. Gant

Supreme Court of the United States
Feb 25, 2008
552 U.S. 1230 (2008)

stating question presented as, "Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured?"

Summary of this case from El v. Crain
Case details for

Arizona v. Gant

Case Details

Full title:ARIZONA, petitioner, v. Rodney Joseph GANT.

Court:Supreme Court of the United States

Date published: Feb 25, 2008

Citations

552 U.S. 1230 (2008)
128 S. Ct. 1443
170 L. Ed. 2d 274
76 U.S.L.W. 3454

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Davis

After his indictment for possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Davis filed a motion to…

U.S. v. Rumley

We note, moreover, that our plain-error review works no harshness here because the Supreme Court granted…