The United States Supreme Court recently re-wrote the law on search and seizure regarding vehicles. Now, if a police officer pulls you over for a traffic violation and then removes you from your vehicle and handcuffs you, he can not then go back into the car to search for drugs and guns (or any other evidence).
The old law gave the officers the right to always search the passenger compartment of your vehicle after the arrest in order to look for guns or drugs (or other evidence) that could be destroyed. The logic was that the officers need to protect themselves and preserve any evidence that the arrestee might destroy. In the Supreme Court case of Arizona v. Gant (April 2009), Mr. Gant had an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license and that his license was suspended. When he was pulled over, he exited his vehicle and was immediately placed in handcuffs and then secured in the back of the officer’s patrol car. The officer then went and searched Gant’s car and found a firearm and cocaine in the passenger compartment.
The Supreme Court held that the drugs and gun found in Gant’s car should be suppressed because the officer did not have a warrant to search Gant’s car. The prosecutors’ argued that they could search Gant’s car after they arrested him under the “search incident to arrest” rule of New York v. Belton. However, the Supreme Court said that, in Gant’s case, he was in handcuffs and secured in the back of the officer’s patrol car, there was no way that Gant could have grabbed a gun or destroyed evidence, so the officer was not allowed to go back into the car to search. Also, since the arrest was for driving on a suspended license, there was no reason to believe that evidence related to that crime would be located in the car. If the arrest would have been for a suspected drug or gun offense, then the search would have been valid as the officers could have searched the car for evidence relevant to the offense for which Gant was arrested. However, the court ruled that the “search incident to arrest” rule does not give officers the right to rummage through a suspects vehicle for every arrest they make.



Comments
Police officers do not handcuff nor arrest for traffic violations. In most states they are called infractions are are only punishable by a civil fine, not an arrest.
You are also leaving out parts of the story when you state "he can not then go back into the car to search for drugs and guns (or any other evidence)". Evidence is one of the exclusions to the new rule, so if an officer arrests for a crime, they can in fact go and search the vehicle for evidence of that crime.
Whomever wrote this article needs to try again.
"Mr. Gant had an outstanding warrant for driving on a suspended license and that his license was suspended."
You fail at reading comprehension. (And police you arrest for outstanding warrants)
Too bad so sad little piggy.
The Supreme Court never issued a ruling on the Gant case (which was in 2003, not this year), the Court of Appeals in AZ was what issued the rule that is referred to here (not allowing this type of search), but the Supreme Court later decided (and overturned AZ ruling) in Thornton (2003) that the search is constitutional. Moral of the story, don't break the law.
http://www.oyez.com/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1019
admissible in court.