Also known as: Belton rule · Belton search · New York v. Belton · Belton doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A bright-line rule authorizing officers to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers inside it as a search incident to the lawful arrest of a recent occupant.
Officer Clark stopped Brianna Burke for speeding and learned of an outstanding warrant. He arrested her, handcuffed her, and placed her in the patrol car. Clark then searched the passenger compartment and found cocaine inside a jacket on the back seat. The search was valid because Brianna was a recent occupant of the vehicle at the time of arrest.
Benjamin Brooks exited his car and walked toward a store when officers approached him about a warrant. After arresting him beside the vehicle, they searched the passenger compartment and discovered a firearm under the seat. The search was permissible because Benjamin remained a recent occupant whose arrest justified the compartment search.
Bianca Blanco was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car. Officers then searched her vehicle and found drugs in a jacket. The search exceeded the doctrine because Bianca could not access the passenger compartment once secured.
On August 25, 1999, Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed responded to an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being used to sell drugs by knocking on the front door and speaking with Rodney Gant, who identified himself and stated that he expected the owner to return later. The officers left and conducted a records check revealing that Gant's driver's license had been suspended and that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license. When the officers returned to the house that evening, they found a man near the back of the house and a woman in a car parked in front of it. After a third officer arrived, they arrested the man for providing a false name and the woman for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when Gant arrived. Gant arrived in his car, parked at the end of the driveway, and got out. Officer Griffith recognized the car, confirmed Gant's identity with a flashlight, called to him, and arrested him 10 to 12 feet from the vehicle before handcuffing him. Because the other arrestees occupied the only patrol cars at the scene, Griffith called for backup. When two more officers arrived, they locked Gant in the backseat of their vehicle. After Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car. One of them found a gun, and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. Gant was charged with two offenses of possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. A jury found Gant guilty on both drug counts, and he was sentenced to a 3-year term of imprisonment. After protracted state-court proceedings, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the search of Gant's car was unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court granted the State's petition for certiorari.
View caseBenito Benitez was arrested moments after leaving his parked car. Officers searched the passenger compartment incident to arrest and recovered drug paraphernalia from the glove box. The search was upheld under the doctrine because Benitez was a recent occupant at the time of arrest.
Bradley Banks was arrested near his car and officers searched the passenger compartment under the doctrine. They also seized his cell phone. The compartment search was upheld, but the phone search required a separate warrant analysis because digital data raised distinct privacy concerns.
Beatrice Brown was arrested after exiting her vehicle. Officers searched the passenger compartment incident to arrest and recovered evidence. The court applied the doctrine to uphold the search while distinguishing it from later limitations that tied the authority more closely to access or offense evidence.
It authorizes a search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers inside it when an occupant or recent occupant is lawfully arrested.
Supporting sources
Under the original doctrine a search was permitted even after the arrestee was secured. Later decisions limited the rule to situations where the arrestee remains unsecured and within reaching distance or evidence of the offense may be present.
Yes. The doctrine extends to recent occupants who have left the vehicle before the officer initiates contact, provided the arrest is sufficiently connected in time and space to the vehicle.
Any container found within the passenger compartment may be searched, whether open or closed, because the justification rests on the arrestee's potential access rather than the container's privacy expectation.
…can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested." Ibid. In New York v. Belton , 453 U. S. 454 (1981), we determined that the lower courts "have found no workable definition of the area within the immediate control of the arrestee' when that area arguably includes…