High court's ruling on searches hits home

MONTROSE — A recent Supreme Court decision caused drug charges against Joshua Boots to be tossed.

Overall, Arizona v. Gant will change how law enforcement agencies conduct vehicle searches that for 28 years have been considered automatically permissible upon a suspect's arrest.

Boots was arrested earlier this year on suspicion of driving under restraint. He was on probation for criminal trespass at the time. Police searched his Jeep after arresting Boots and because they reportedly found suspected methamphetamine in the vehicle, he was also charged with possession of a controlled substance.

Defense attorney Stephens Dooley sought to suppress the evidence supporting that charge, and he based his argument on Arizona v. Gant, a high court ruling issued at the end of April.

The district attorney's office agreed to dismiss the drug charge.

Now, an amended complaint against Boots that seeks to revoke his probation and alleges driving under restraint and weapons offenses will be addressed July 15.

Boots is expected to enter into a plea agreement.

According to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's Legal Division, the Arizona v. Gant decision held that police can search the interior of a vehicle incident to arrest of an occupant or recent occupant only if it is reasonable to believe that the person being arrested might access the vehicle at the time of the search, or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense for which a person is arrested (offense-related evidence).

Other exceptions to search warrant requirements remain available, such as reasonable suspicion that someone in a vehicle poses a danger or may have access to a weapon.

In the Boots case, it could not have been reasonably construed that the vehicle's interior contained evidence of him driving under restraint.

"In this particular case, there was nothing to indicate drugs, drug usage or anything of that nature (prior to the search). That's why we went ahead and dropped those charges," Assistant District Attorney Jerry Montgomery said.

"It's not the cop's fault," Dooley said Tuesday. "He did exactly what the law thought he could do."

———

For the full story, see today's print edition. The online story may not reflect all relevant information that was reported. We encourage readers to obtain the full story by reading the print edition or our e-edition, To subscribe, call (970) 252-7081 or click on the subscription link on the main page.