100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.
In the 2009 supreme court case of Arizona v. Gant it was questioned whether police officers werein fact infringing upon an individual’s fourth amendment rights to protect in unreasonable search and seizures after the defendant is handcuffed and the scene is secured. The facts of the case include the apprehension of Mr. Rodney Gant by state police for an outstanding warrant of arrest for driving with a suspended license. Upon securing the scene of the violation and detaining Mr. Rodney Gant, the officers then searched Mr. Gant’s vehicle. In the vehicle, the officers found a bag of cocaine and a handgun. Mr. Gant’s defense argued that the search on Mr. Gant’s vehicle infringed upon his fourth constitutional amendment right to unreasonable search, and that a warrant was needed to secure the evidence. Mr. Gant’s defense further argues that since the evidence was collected in an unconstitutional manner, that the handgun and bag of cocaine is inadmissible in court due to being a fruit from the poisoned tree. In this 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court maintained that under this particular case, the situational facts rendered what the police officers did to be deficient and in violation of Mr. Gant’s fourth amendment constitutional rights (Arizona v. Gant). I agree with the decision of the court, if evidence is not collected in a constitutional manner then it only serves to spark chaos in other areas of the criminal justice system. This will affect police in a manner to overly ensure that the collection of evidence in future cases are decidedly constitutional.Arizona v. Gant. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved June 1, 2020, from