Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. Gantgreen2 sentences2021Under the so-called Gant rule, police may conduct a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein, as an incident to a lawful arrest of a recent occupant of the vehicle, so long as “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.” (Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332, 351 , italics added (Gant).) The “exception derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest sit 2021Under the so-called Gant rule, police may conduct a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein, as an incident to a lawful arrest of a recent occupant of the vehicle, so long as “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.” (Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332, 351 , italics added (Gant).) The “exception derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest sit | 1 | 5 |
The People v. Hernandezgreen1 sentence2025(People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 568 (Hernandez).) We reject Gant’s claim of instructional error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lienggreen2 sentences2021(People v. Lieng (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1218 [“In reviewing the ruling on a motion to suppress, the appellate court defers to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, when supported by substantial evidence.”].) We further conclude the trial court did not err in reaching its implied finding that the vehicle search satisfied the Gant rule. 2021(People v. Lieng (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1218 [“In reviewing the ruling on a motion to suppress, the appellate court defers to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, when supported by substantial evidence.”].) We further conclude the trial court did not err in reaching its implied finding that the vehicle search satisfied the Gant rule. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Macabeogreen2 sentences2021Under the so-called Gant rule, police may conduct a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein, as an incident to a lawful arrest of a recent occupant of the vehicle, so long as “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.” (Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332, 351 , italics added (Gant).) The “exception derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest sit 2021Under the so-called Gant rule, police may conduct a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein, as an incident to a lawful arrest of a recent occupant of the vehicle, so long as “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.” (Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332, 351 , italics added (Gant).) The “exception derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest sit | 1 | 1 |
Rawlings v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2021At the time the officers began to search the vehicle—and discovered the first loaded 5 The fact that the search of the vehicle occurred before the defendant’s formal arrest is of no moment, given that the formal “arrest follow[ed] ‘quickly on the heels’ of the search” and was “supported by probable cause independent of the fruits of the search ….” (U.S. v. Smith (9th Cir. 2004) 389 F.3d 944, 951 ; see Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980) 448 U.S. 98, 111 [“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s person, we do not believe it particularly important t 2021At the time the officers began to search the vehicle—and discovered the first loaded 5 The fact that the search of the vehicle occurred before the defendant’s formal arrest is of no moment, given that the formal “arrest follow[ed] ‘quickly on the heels’ of the search” and was “supported by probable cause independent of the fruits of the search ….” (U.S. v. Smith (9th Cir. 2004) 389 F.3d 944, 951 ; see Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980) 448 U.S. 98, 111 [“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s person, we do not believe it particularly important t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ewoldtgreen1 sentence2016Although Gant’s defense at trial was simply that a reasonable doubt existed whether the undercover officers had actually witnessed a sale at all, not that he did not know what he was selling, “‘[t]he prosecution’s burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the case.’” (People v. Jones (2011) 51 Cal.4th 346, 372 ; accord, People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 400, fn. 4 .) Accordingly, the People were entitled to introduce evidence to prove Gant’s knowledge. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cantrellgreen2 sentences2011(Id. at pp. 681-682; see also State v. Cantrell (Ct.App. 2010) 149 Idaho 247, 253 [ 233 P.3d 178, 184 ] [rejecting argument that Gant exception requires additional facts beyond the nature of the offense; rather, “ ‘the offense of arrest will supply a basis . . .’ ” for the search]; U.S. v. Page (E.D.Va. 2009) 679 F.Supp.2d 648, 654 .) Certainly, the language used by the high court in Gant—that “the offense of arrest will supply a basis . . .” to believe evidence might be found in the vehicle, and that Gant’s offense, driving with a suspended license, was “an offense for which police could not 2011(Id. at pp. 681-682; see also State v. Cantrell (Ct.App. 2010) 149 Idaho 247, 253 [ 233 P.3d 178, 184 ] [rejecting argument that Gant exception requires additional facts beyond the nature of the offense; rather, “ ‘the offense of arrest will supply a basis . . .’ ” for the search]; U.S. v. Page (E.D.Va. 2009) 679 F.Supp.2d 648, 654 .) Certainly, the language used by the high court in Gant—that “the offense of arrest will supply a basis . . .” to believe evidence might be found in the vehicle, and that Gant’s offense, driving with a suspended license, was “an offense for which police could not | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences1968(People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288-289 [ 294 P.2d 32 ]; People v. Jenkins, 223 Cal.App.2d 537, 541 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 776 ].) Another circumstance is Gant’s brief attempt to escape the officer. 1968(People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288-289 [ 294 P.2d 32 ]; People v. Jenkins, 223 Cal.App.2d 537, 541 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 776 ].) Another circumstance is Gant’s brief attempt to escape the officer. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Citrinogreen2 sentences1968(People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288-289 [ 294 P.2d 32 ]; People v. Jenkins, 223 Cal.App.2d 537, 541 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 776 ].) Another circumstance is Gant’s brief attempt to escape the officer. 1968(People v. Citrino, 46 Cal.2d 284, 288-289 [ 294 P.2d 32 ]; People v. Jenkins, 223 Cal.App.2d 537, 541 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 776 ].) Another circumstance is Gant’s brief attempt to escape the officer. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Kory Ray Smith
green
2 sentences2021At the time the officers began to search the vehicle—and discovered the first loaded 5 The fact that the search of the vehicle occurred before the defendant’s formal arrest is of no moment, given that the formal “arrest follow[ed] ‘quickly on the heels’ of the search” and was “supported by probable cause independent of the fruits of the search ….” (U.S. v. Smith (9th Cir. 2004) 389 F.3d 944, 951 ; see Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980) 448 U.S. 98, 111 [“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s person, we do not believe it particularly important t 2021At the time the officers began to search the vehicle—and discovered the first loaded 5 The fact that the search of the vehicle occurred before the defendant’s formal arrest is of no moment, given that the formal “arrest follow[ed] ‘quickly on the heels’ of the search” and was “supported by probable cause independent of the fruits of the search ….” (U.S. v. Smith (9th Cir. 2004) 389 F.3d 944, 951 ; see Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980) 448 U.S. 98, 111 [“Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s person, we do not believe it particularly important t | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2021(People v. Johnson (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1026, 1035 .) Before we address whether the search satisfied the Gant rule, we consider a predicate issue contested by the parties—whether the search was incident to a custodial arrest. 2021(People v. Johnson (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1026, 1035 .) Before we address whether the search satisfied the Gant rule, we consider a predicate issue contested by the parties—whether the search was incident to a custodial arrest. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Knowles v. Iowa
green
1 sentence2019In fact, the rationale of the high court’s decision in Knowles—a case we discussed at length in Arturo D. (id. at pp. 74–76)—was that the justifications that supported an exception to the warrant requirement for a search incident to an arrest do not support an exception for a search incident to the issuance of a citation. ( Knowles, supra, 525 U.S. at pp. 116– 118.) Asserting that an exception must be tethered to the justifications that support it is merely another way of saying that the exception must be reasonable (reasonable both as a general matter and in the specific manner of its applica | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Arturo D.
green
1 sentence2019(Ibid.) Regarding Gant’s rule that an exception to the warrant requirement must be tethered to the justifications that support it (Gant, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 343 ), this rule is nothing new, and 17 PEOPLE v. LOPEZ Chin, J., dissenting therefore it does not justify reconsideration of Arturo D., supra, 27 Cal.4th 60 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Jones
green
1 sentence2016Although Gant’s defense at trial was simply that a reasonable doubt existed whether the undercover officers had actually witnessed a sale at all, not that he did not know what he was selling, “‘[t]he prosecution’s burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant’s tactical decision not to contest an essential element of the case.’” (People v. Jones (2011) 51 Cal.4th 346, 372 ; accord, People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 400, fn. 4 .) Accordingly, the People were entitled to introduce evidence to prove Gant’s knowledge. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Riley v. Cal. United States
green
2 sentences2015It decided that "the search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones." ( Riley, supra, at p. __ [ 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2494 ].) Justice Roberts wrote for the unanimous court: "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant." (Id. at p. __ [p. 2495].) The court refused to extend the Gant exception to cell phones, which would have "allow[ed] a warrantless search of an arrestee's cell phone whenever it is reasonable to believe that the phone contains evidence of the crime of arrest." (Ri 2015It decided that "the search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones." ( Riley, supra, at p. __ [ 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2494 ].) Justice Roberts wrote for the unanimous court: "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant." (Id. at p. __ [p. 2495].) The court refused to extend the Gant exception to cell phones, which would have "allow[ed] a warrantless search of an arrestee's cell phone whenever it is reasonable to believe that the phone contains evidence of the crime of arrest." (Ri | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Page
green
1 sentence2011(Id. at pp. 681-682; see also State v. Cantrell (Ct.App. 2010) 149 Idaho 247, 253 [ 233 P.3d 178, 184 ] [rejecting argument that Gant exception requires additional facts beyond the nature of the offense; rather, “ ‘the offense of arrest will supply a basis . . .’ ” for the search]; U.S. v. Page (E.D.Va. 2009) 679 F.Supp.2d 648, 654 .) Certainly, the language used by the high court in Gant—that “the offense of arrest will supply a basis . . .” to believe evidence might be found in the vehicle, and that Gant’s offense, driving with a suspended license, was “an offense for which police could not | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.