Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Fourth AmendmentCO: Gant x 2
By John Wesley Hall, Jr.
ADVERTISEMENTS
Defendant was stopped after officers surveilling a head shop, and he produced a still wrapped pipe. This was insufficient to justify a search incident of his car under Gant. Even if Gant applied, the court would not make the good faith exception to this warrantless search retroactive. People v. McCarty, 2010 Colo. LEXIS 361 (May 10, 2010).
Under Gant, a search of a glove compartment in a car is unlawful where the driver was neither within reaching distance of the vehicle’s passenger compartment and there was no indication that any evidence of the offense of arrest would be found in the car. Even if the driver disclaimed any possessory interest in the glove compartment, his possessory interest in the car itself prevents an officer from entering the vehicle in order to access the glove compartment within it...continue to full postFull post as published by Fourth Amendment on May 14, 2010 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

SCOTUSwiki Preview: Arizona v. Gant
The Holding of Gant, and Some Initial Questions as To Its Application::
Does Arizona v. Gant Extend Beyond Passenger Compartments:








