Following a stipulated bench trial, appellant Reginald Boykins was convicted of possession of cocaine and sentenced to four years imprisonment. He appealed his conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress drug evidence seized from his vehicle to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the vehicle search violated his Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Boykins v. State , 307 Ga. App. 404 705 SE2d 186 2010, and we granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in its application of Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.332 129 SC 1710, 173 LE2d 485 2009, to the facts of this case. For the reasons stated below, we reverse. 1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the fact finder was authorized to find that on the night of the crime Officer Morales of the DeKalb County Police Department saw appellant pull his vehicle up and talk to a woman walking in a high crime area. Appellant quickly drove off when Morales turned the patrol car around. Suspecting prostitution, Morales asked the woman if she knew the man in the car. She said no. Morales drove into the nearby apartment complex and saw the vehicle pull into a parking space. He pulled behind the vehicle, got out, and asked appellant for his identification. Appellant said his identification was in his apartment, but he gave Morales his name and birth date. After discovering appellant had an outstanding probation arrest warrant, Morales asked appellant to get out of the car, put him in handcuffs and placed him in the custody of a second officer. Morales then searched appellant’s vehicle, finding cocaine in the center console.
2. Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress the drug evidence on the ground that the search of his vehicle was not a proper search-incident-to-arrest under Arizona v. Gant , supra. In New York v. Belton , 453 U.454, 460 101 SC 2860, 69 LE2d 768 1981, the United States Supreme Court held that when police “have made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, they may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile and may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment of that automobile.” Recognizing that many courts interpreted Belton to allow a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there was no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search, the Gant Court substantially limited its Belton decision. The Court held that “police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” Gant , supra, 129 SC at 1723. The Court explained its limitation by specifically noting that “because officers have many means of ensuring the safe arrest of vehicle occupants, it will be the rare case in which an officer is unable to fully effectuate an arrest so that a real possibility of access to the arrestee’s vehicle remains. Cits.” Id. at fn. 4.
