Recent Court Decisions Expand and Detract Defendant’s Rights

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have resulted in major shifts in police power, thus expanding a defendant’s right, on one hand, while reducing those rights on the other.

In the recent case of Arizona v. Gant, the defendant, Gant, was stopped by the police for Driving under Suspension.  His driving privileges had been suspended by the state for a previous violation of Arizona’s traffic laws.  Gant was removed from the vehicle and placed in the officer’s police cruiser.  The officer then searched the defendant’s vehicle and found rock cocaine in the defendant’s jacket pocket.  The defendant was subsequently charged with the drug office in addition to his traffic violation. While the court failed to characterize the search as such, the search was conducted pursuant to a police policy to do so prior to towing the vehicle after an arrest - commonly referred to as an “inventory” search.

The court in its decision stated, 

“Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” 

Because the court did not use the term “inventory search,” a debate has raged among many academics, prosecutors and defendants as to the court’s intent.  Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the right of police to search a vehicle incident to a traffic stop.

In the second case, the court has actually reversed a prior decision of the court regarding the interrogation of arrestees.  Previously, the law stated that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless that attorney is present.  The rule applied even if the Defendant agreed to speak to authorities without their attorney.

This opinion has been overturned.  In Montejo v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion stated, “It would be completely unjustified to presume that a defendant’s consent to police-initiated interrogation was involuntary or coerced simply because he had previously been appointed a lawyer.”  

Therefore, it appears the court has shifted the burden to the defendant to show that the defendant was somehow coerced into speaking with the police without the benefit of counsel. Previously, the police could not even ask the defendant who had an attorney if he wanted to talk.  Now, this protection was been overruled and the police can initiate questioning of the defendant, even if the defendant is represented by counsel and it will be the defendant’s burden to seek suppression based upon coercion, threat, or other unconstitutional procedures by the police.

How do these cases impact on a DUI arrest?  Previously, if one is stopped and the police find probable cause to arrest for DUI, the police then initiated an inventory search ostensibly to safeguard valuables of the Defendant when the car was being towed.  If any contraband was found (drugs, open containers, guns, etc.) the Defendant then could be charged with additional offenses, some that may be major crimes.  The court has put an end to this type of search when a defendant is being arrested for a non-contraband offense such as a traffic violation such as DUI.

The impact of the other case impacts on voluntary statements made by a defendant while in custody.  Let us assume the defendant tells the arresting officer they do not wish to speak without the benefit of counsel.  Previously, the questioning had to stop.  Now, this is no longer true.  Using the Montejo opinion, the police can initiate questioning unless the defendant continues to insist on his right to counsel and deeps quiet.  So, it is vitally important that defendant keeps their wits about them and does not respond to the police questioning.  Remember, it is the defendant’s word against the police officer’s word as to the circumstances surrounding a given interrogation,  and the tendency is to side with the police officer.