search incident to arrest exception in Missouri

2019It found Gant “recognized that the Chimel concerns for officer safety and evidence preservation [that] underlie the search incident to arrest exception” authorize searches of an arrestee’s vehicle and the seizure of weapons or evidence “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.” Id. at 384-85 (quoting Gant, 556 U.S. at 343 ).

2016This principle was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant: “If there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply.” 556 U.S. 332, 339 , 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 .

2019The search incident to arrest exception allows officers “to remove any weapons that the [arrestee] might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape” and to “seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 , 383 (2014) (quoting Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969)).

2011Chimel v. California originally justified the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement based on the rationales of officer safety and prevention of evidence destruction. 395 U.S. 752, 763 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).

2019Mr. Greene asserts it was objectively unreasonable for officers in 2014 to follow the overly broad interpretation of the search incident to arrest exception from prior appellate cases because Gant had already deemed such an interpretation erroneous in 2009. 10 The issue in Riley was whether law enforcement’s warrantless searches for information on cell phones found and seized in a search of the arrestee’s person were lawful. 573 U.S. at 378.

2019The search incident to arrest exception allows officers “to remove any weapons that the [arrestee] might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape” and to “seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 , 383 (2014) (quoting Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969)).

2024See State v. Collins, 53 P.3d 953, 957 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (finding a search incident to civil commitment custody for mental health reasons was reasonable without a search warrant: “Indeed, a protective custody search of a mentally ill individual may be more warranted [than a search incident to arrest] given the greater likelihood that they could injure themselves or others with a concealed weapon.”).

2016“Rescinding this historical rule turns the search-incident-to-arrest exception into a search-incident-to-probable-cause-to-arrest exception, disregarding the Supreme Court’s repeated pronouncements describing warrant exceptions as ‘specifically established,’ ‘well delineated,’ and ‘jealously and carefully drawn.’ ” Id. at 746 (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)).

2016It needs an arrest.”' Butler, 102 A.3d at 743 (dissent).

2002United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); State v. Tackett, 12 S.W.3d 332, 338 (Mo.App.

2002United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); State v. Tackett, 12 S.W.3d 332, 338 (Mo.App.

2002United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); State v. Tackett, 12 S.W.3d 332, 338 (Mo.App.