On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to rule when police officers can search a car of an arrested passenger or driver without a warrant.

The high court was asked by the prosecutors, including Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley to issue a rule that could allow officers to search a vehicle every time an arrest is made, even if the person was arrested.
The 1981 decision said that a vehicle could be searched by the officers when the occupant is arrested in order to check for weapons. The search was legal, because it meant the officers were in danger if weapons were in the vehicle.

Some prosecutors believed that this decision gave police authority to search the vehicle after an arrest.

But the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that this decision violated the Fourth Amendment when a man was arrested near his parked car.

Rodney Joseph Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, was handcuffed and put in the seatback of a patrol car. Afterwards police officers searched his car and a gun and a bag of cocaine was found.

The evidence was not taken into consideration by the Arizona high court saying that the search was a violation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment and its forbidden on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” Los Angeles Times reports.

The Arizona appeals courts said that the officers were out of danger since Gant was handcuffed.

They could have obtained a search warrant, but after they demonstrated to a magistrate that they believe drugs were in the vehicle.

Last fall an appeal was made to the U.S. Supreme Court by Arizona Atty. Gen. Terry Goddard. He said that if the opinion of the state high court is allowed there will be “an unworkable and dangerous test” meant to bring confusion among police, prosecutors and judges.

The Los Angeles County district attorney and the National Assn. of Police Organizations insisted the court to clarify the law about the vehicle searches.

The Arizona vs. Gant case will have a hearing in fall.