Under which case is a search not justified when it is remote in time and place from an arrest or there is no exigency?

Under which case is a search not justified when it is remote in time and place from an arrest or there is no exigency?

• A. United States v Ross
• B. New York v Belton
• C. Brown v State
• D. Adams v Williams

Answer: (D)

The principle tested is that a search conducted as part of an arrest must be tied to the moment of the arrest and the immediate circumstances; if the search is far removed in time or place from the arrest, or there is no genuine exigency, the justification falls away. Adams v Williams is the case that fits this idea because it centers on on-the-spot police action built around an immediate threat to officer safety. When a search or frisk is not connected to the moment of contact or there’s no ongoing danger, applying a search later or at a distant location isn’t justified. The other options deal with different contexts—vehicle searches with probable cause, or searches incident to arrest in the vehicle’s passenger area—which don’t hinge on the remoteness from the arrest or the absence of exigency in the same way.

The principle tested is that a search conducted as part of an arrest must be tied to the moment of the arrest and the immediate circumstances; if the search is far removed in time or place from the arrest, or there is no genuine exigency, the justification falls away.

Adams v Williams is the case that fits this idea because it centers on on-the-spot police action built around an immediate threat to officer safety. When a search or frisk is not connected to the moment of contact or there’s no ongoing danger, applying a search later or at a distant location isn’t justified. The other options deal with different contexts—vehicle searches with probable cause, or searches incident to arrest in the vehicle’s passenger area—which don’t hinge on the remoteness from the arrest or the absence of exigency in the same way.