On April 21, 2009, we published an
article about the
Supreme Court's decision in
Arizona v. Gant. The
Supreme Court severely limited police officers power to search vehicles after an arrest. In
Arizona v. Gant, the defendant had been pulled over for a traffic violation. The police officer determined that he did not have a license and placed him under arrest. He was handcuffed and placed in the back of the police vehicle. The officer then searched the vehicle and discovered a
gun and
drugs. The
Supreme Court ruled that the search of the vehicle was unreasonable and ruled that the evidence seized in the search had to be suppressed. The court ruled that in order to search the vehicle the defendant had to be close enough to the vehicle as to pose a risk that he could grab a
weapon out of the car or that the police had a reasonable belief that they would find evidence related to the reason that the defendant had been arrested.
Today I used this case to win a motion to suppress on an
Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon By a Felon charge at
26th and California. The facts of my client's case were very similar to the facts in
Gant. The defendant was pulled over because his license plate light was not working. The officer asked my client for his license but he could not produce one because it had been revoked for a prior
DUI. The officer testified that he placed handcuffs on my client and put him in the back seat of his squad car. There was a passenger in the front seat. A check of his name revealed an outstanding traffic warrant and he was handcuffed and placed in the back seat of the squad car as well. The officer then proceeded to search my client's vehicle finding a loaded
handgun in the back seat area of his vehicle. The state argued that this search was actually an inventory search and that the officer was following Chicago Police procedure. However, the officer admitted that he did not produce an inventory report and could only state that "miscellaneous" items were retrieved from the vehicle in the inventory search.
The court found that an inventory search would be an exception but that what the officer testified to could not be deemed to be an inventory search. The officer did not produce an inventory report and could only remember that "miscellaneous" other items were found. Since the defendant and his passenger were in handcuffs in the back seat of the squad car, and the only reason for the arrest of the defendant was that he had no driver's license, the police needed a warrant to search the vehicle.
The client was facing substantial jail time if he had been convicted of this offense. He has been to the penitentiary at least three times, most recently serving 10 years for a very serious set of felonies.
For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at
www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.