556 U.S. 332 (2009)
Arizona v. Gant is a landmark Fourth Amendment decision that recalibrated the scope of vehicle searches incident to arrest.
Does the Fourth Amendment permit police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle's passenger compartment incident to arrest when the arrestee has been handcuffed and secured and when there is no reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest?
Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if: (1) the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search; or (2) it is reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence relevant to the offense of arrest. This authority is limited to the passenger compartment and its containers and must be tethered to the Chimel rationales of officer safety and evidence preservation. It does not authorize a categorical search upon every arrest of a vehicle occupant and does not extend to the trunk.
No. The warrantless search of Gant's car violated the Fourth Amendment because Gant was handcuffed and secured in a patrol car at the time of the search, and officers had no reasonable basis to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest—driving with a suspended license—would be found in the vehicle.
Gant is a foundational Fourth Amendment decision for criminal procedure. It limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to two narrow circumstances and rejects the once-common practice of automatic passenger-compartment searches following any custodial arrest of a driver or recent occupant. For routine traffic arrests (e.g., suspended license, seatbelt, or similar regulatory offenses), Gant typically forecloses a search incident to arrest absent independent grounds. The case also clarifies how search-incident doctrine interlocks with other exceptions: officers must consider alternative justifications such as the automobile exception, consent, or inventory procedures rather than rely on arrest alone. In classrooms and courtrooms alike, Gant supplies a structured, two-prong analysis that is central to exam hypotheticals and real-world suppression litigation.