meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Street Cop Podcast

PC vs. Search Incident to Arrest

Street Cop Podcast

Street Cop Training

Education

4.9933 Ratings

🗓️ 29 October 2021

⏱️ 7 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

In this archive episode, Dennis expounds on the nuances of searching a vehicle with probable cause after an arrest and a search incident that leads to arrest in a motor vehicle setting. Recorded on 07/19/2018. State v Eckel 2006 - There is no such thing as search of a vehicle incident to arrest. THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN A VEHICLE THAT HAS PC TO SEARCH. See State of NJ v Witt 2015 below. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13373502352381477276andq=eckelandhl=enandas_sdt=4%2C31andfbclid=IwAR3V1lVy04MfN4y8HaSoX8v7oNaopdzm2NtImdH8oagNrZcIiJCPha6j2_I (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13373502352381477276andq=eckelandhl=enandas_sdt=4,31) Also see Arizona V. Gant (2009) which replaced NY v. Belton (Belton Bright Line Rule).https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16930540025490515536andq=arizona%20v%20gantandhl=enandas_sdt=3%2C31andfbclid=IwAR07ktl6cAjsZ9LAW3f06FhqTroQoM_Mu0vB3FM-p6kgg3YxyRcJXmP4faI (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16930540025490515536andq=arizona+v+gantandhl=enandas_sdt=3,31) State v. William Witt 2015 - Significantly, we also made clear in Alston, supra, that merely because “the particular occupants of the vehicle may have been removed from the car, arrested, or otherwise restricted in their freedom of movement,” police were not required to secure a warrant. 88 N.J. at 234. Last, relying on Chambers, we emphasized that “when there is probable cause to conduct an immediate search at the scene of the stop, the police are not required to delay the search by seizing and impounding the vehicle pending review of that probable cause determination by a magistrate.” Id. at 234–35. (Translation: You don’t need to call a judge and get a search warrant.) https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_case%3Fcase%3D10598890643338692273%26q%3Dwitt%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D4%252C31%26fbclid%3DIwAR1ySCqfsxQmfnGQBl-STl2DFs8BY-Ct_i1cKBKhpYQXq6zuD8n4y39gI_Qandh=AT1d7eQPdhjbdxHhiQ10i4MIpGO_y5T937G9uzhznDcKt8O2pcKbsnmK9lYZ1pdDK_W85B72mGP3lJexeLa-hwV2Lu7X8Iq76sp3DtXu6gknzhNlzryKnplmL8CdDdiKl3saq882G7xqUFSyqQand__tn__=-UK-R (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10598890643338692273andq=wittandhl=enandas_sdt=4,31) State of NJ v Irelan 2005 - This case ruled officers have the right to search a motor vehicle for open containers after an arrest for DWI. (1) the police may lawfully effect a custodial arrest of a motorist when there is probable cause of a DWI violation; (2) incident to the arrest, the police may search the person of the arrestee; and (3) a contemporaneous warrantless search of the vehicle is permissible We hold that these facts are sufficient to support a reasonable well-grounded suspicion that alcohol was consumed in the vehicle, and thus the vehicle contained open containers of alcohol. Therefore, the probable cause prong of the automobile exception is met. This will be allowed for CDS related DWI’s as well. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9640666213244871786andq=irelanandhl=enandas_sdt=4%2C31andfbclid=IwAR2m6zphP5nu4GJQ1jZ7QnNg4AFW1BUF_N2F5YpvuV477DGKBSukpGy-0oI (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9640666213244871786andq=irelanandhl=enandas_sdt=4,31)

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

1st

0:07.6

1nd in the United States.

0:05.6

You trying to be a street cop.

0:10.0

Alright let me try to help everybody for the 19th time on trying to understand or maybe

0:17.6

being able to relate this back to coworkers on the difference between search incident to arrest of a motor vehicle and arresting somebody

0:25.3

and searching a vehicle that contains probable cause.

0:28.0

And I'm going to run off and rattle off some cases off top of my head as I'm driving into the office today.

0:35.0

And for New Jersey specifically, but also for the rest of the state, it's the same rules as long as you have the automobile exception.

0:42.0

All right, so first thing is we had a case in 2006 that came out, it's called State V Ekel, right?

0:48.0

And basically what it says years ago, if you could lot of you don't know that you weren't around during the time.

0:53.0

Prior to 2006 in New Jersey, or 2009,

0:55.4

for the rest of the country,

0:56.6

when you arrested somebody on a traffic warrant,

1:00.3

you get to search the whole car incident to arrest even if the car had no

1:04.5

PC attached to it it was considered like a backpack or their pockets you got to

1:09.6

search the entire car as incident to arrest. Well, we lost that in 2006, okay? And then the rest of the world

1:16.6

lost that in Arizona v. Gant in 2009, I think eight or nine, in 2009. Anyway, see the problem is, is when people hear one piece of case law

1:27.7

and they don't understand the other case law that exists,

1:31.2

they get confused.

1:32.2

And I'm here to try to help you clurb some confusion.

1:34.0

And if you're dealing with a coworker

1:35.7

that may misunderstand this, you can show them this video.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Street Cop Training, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Street Cop Training and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.