Related articles:

Supreme Court decision in Tucson warrantless search case has national implications

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor

PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court will use a Tucson case to decide when police can routinely search the vehicles of the people they arrest.

The justices announced Monday they have agreed to consider a plea by police and prosecutors to overturn a divided state Supreme Court decision last year that restricted the ability of officers to search without a warrant when they need to ensure their safety.

In that case, the state justices said once there was no threat to the officers, the right to search without a warrant disappeared.

In agreeing to accept the case, the justices acknowledged, in this case, the occupants of the searched vehicle had been arrested and secured.

But they said they want to decide whether the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bars unreasonable search and seizure, requires law enforcement officers "to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest" before they can look through a vehicle without bothering with a warrant.

However the court rules, it will have nationwide implications.

Court records show two uniformed Tucson police officers went to a house in 1999 after receiving a tip about narcotics activity there. Rodney Gant answered the door but said the owner wasn't home.

Police later checked records and learned Gant had a suspended driver's license and an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license.

They returned to the house, and when Gant drove up and got out of the car, he was arrested, handcuffed and subsequently placed in the back of a patrol car.

When officers searched his car, they said they found a small bag of cocaine and a weapon. He was later convicted on drug charges after the trial judge refused to throw out the evidence.

But in a 3-2 decision, the majority of the Arizona Supreme Court said the authority of police to conduct warrantless searches is limited to situations of police safety, such as looking for a weapon in the immediate area of the person being arrested, or times when waiting for a warrant might result in destruction of evidence.

Judge Rebecca Berch, writing that majority decision, pointed out Gant already was handcuffed and in the back of a patrol car. That, Berch said, means the Tucson Police Department violated Gant's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Berch said technology allows police to obtain search warrants within minutes "when they have probable cause to do so to protect a citizen's right to be free from unreasonable governmental searches."

She said the law doesn't require police to prove in every situation that they were concerned about their safety or destruction of evidence, saying those concerns are presumed to exist anytime someone is arrested. But she said that once these concerns no longer are present, warrantless searches no longer are allowed.

Justice Scott Bales, writing the dissent, said searches of vehicles are reasonable and legal when someone who has been in the car is legally arrested.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to let the National Association of Police Organizations file its own legal arguments supporting the position of prosecutors.