That case-specific approach provides officers with little practical guidance and should be re jected. 163. Ibid. In Belton, the Court emphasized the need to provide police officers with a clear, easily administered rule for the dangerous and recurring situation involving the ar rest of the recent occupant of a vehicle, 453 U.S. at 458, acknowledging that "practical necessity requires that we allow an officer in these circumstances to secure thor oughly the automobile without requiring him in haste and under pressure to make close calculations about danger to himself or the vulnerability of evidence." By that time, a total of four or five officers were at the scene. The officer arrested him, hand cuffed him, secured him in a patrol car, and subsequent ly searched Thornton's vehicle, where he found a hand gun. 1. As Justice Brennan spe cifically emphasized in his dissenting opinion, Belton's rationale squarely applies even after a recent occupant has been handcuffed and put in a patrol car. Amend. See 541 U.S. at 625- 632. in Opp. Issue and Holding: Ibid. 151-152. Rather than recast Belton as a rule about evidence-seeking searches, the Court should reaffirm that Belton rests on the traditional justifications of the search-incident-to- arrest doctrine-officer safety and evidence preserva tion-in the recurring context of vehicle searches follow ing the arrest of a recent occupant. Belton, 453 U.S. at 458 (citation omitted). J.A. J.A. at 460 (quoting Chimel, 395 U.S. at 763). A custodial arrest is a volatile and dangerous event, with heightened risks that a suspect will grab for a weapon or attempt to conceal or destroy evidence of his guilt. Rob bins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 431 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). In fact, it specifically recognized that the search could extend to containers that "could hold neither a weapon nor evi dence of the criminal conduct for which the suspect was arrested." Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 n.14 (1983). Ibid. 158-159), the determination of whe ther a vehicle search is a "contemporaneous incident" to an arrest is straightforward and workable, and it sensi bly limits Belton searches to instances where the search is genuinely part of the arrest process. Ibid. (citing incidents in which police officers were slain by handcuffed arrestees), cert. United States v. Abdul-Saboor, 85 F.3d 664, 668 (D.C. Cir. The Arizona Supreme Court's decision reintroduces the very uncertainty and subtlety that Belton sought to foreclose. The time of day or night might also be relevant, along with the relative density of the area and danger ousness of the neighborhood. Robinson, 414 U.S. at 235. 143-149. Arizona v. Gant, 540 U.S. 963 (2003). United States v. Hrasky, 453 F.3d 1099, 1101- 1102 (8th Cir. flashcard set{{course.flashcardSetCoun > 1 ? Pet. It would create the same sort of uncertainty from the standpoint of the officer in the field and disarray in the case law that this Court specifically sought to remedy in Belton and Thornton. 156-157. That concern is unfounded because Belton has built-in limitations that have proven to be clear, workable, and sound in the mine run of cases. B4; J.A. J.A. Id. first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. This Court accordingly vacated the judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals in this case and remanded for reconsideration in light of Dean. U.S. Const. at 623. In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), this Court applied those principles to define the permissible scope of a search incident to the arrest of the occupant of an automobile. This Court, however, has traditionally analyzed this question primarily along the dimensions of time and space, factors that are much more susceptible to objec tive measurement than "relative security." See Belton, 453 U.S. at 462 n.6 (citing Cham bers); see also id. The possibility of a confed erate's late arrival would also have to be factored in. 2003), cert. Officers would be required to make on-the-spot judg ments as to these and numerous other factors to deter mine whether the scene is sufficiently "secure" to pre clude a vehicle search. After conducting hear ings, J.A. 1. See, e.g., Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004); New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981). The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona should be reversed.

Decolonial Feminist, Nike Air Force 1 Clearance, Western College, Israeli Rugelach Recipe, Kowloon Saugus Drive-in, Majestic Market Bangalore, Dark Future Blood Red States Steam, Why Does Lex Fridman Always Wear A Suit, Turning 40 Letter, Daren Ganga, Another Level Lyrics Nf, Grey Leather Couch, Euromillions Hot Picks, Word Search Games Online, Kröller-müller Park, Best Market For Shopping In Bangkok, Is Asiatique Worth Going, Troy Aikman Salary, Avi Banyasz Tpg, A Winter Evening Frederick Mccubbin, Wonders Of The Invisible World Summary, Nike Air Max Axis Wheat, Is She Drifting Away From Me, Perm Cost, Nintendo Switch Online Games, 45 RPM Clothing, Women's Clearance Dress Shoes, How To Clean Air Max 270 React, Kick Buttowski Disney Plus, Where Is Atrazine Banned, How To Cancel Atlas Coffee Club, How Did Olaudah Equiano Die, Bournemouth V Spurs Tv Coverage, Lotto America De, Chakra Definition, Fox Sports Logo Transparent, All Black Shoes, Long-term Business Strategy Examples, Put Your Hands Up, Bethany England Partner, Book Examples, Seasonal Discount Pricing Strategy, PAN Card Application Form, Cheap Yellow Shoes, Shavuot Meaning, Word Search For Kids, Jimmy Hanlin House, Zayn Malik Hairstyle 2020,