Yesterday I asked whether the denial of certiorari in Brendlin, the sequel, "presage[d] that there will be no major change in the law in Arizona v. Gant?" Never mind.

In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), presented the question, "When the occupant of an automobile is subjected to a lawful custodial arrest, does the constitutionally permissible scope of a search incident to his arrest include the passenger compartment of the automobile in which he was riding?" Answer: yes.

Today in Gant, by a 5-4 vote, the Court rejected a "broad" (i.e., straightforward) reading of Belton. The exception to the warrant requirement described in Belton applies only when the arrestee might be able to reach inside the car to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence or "when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle."

What about stare decisis (the doctrine of adherence to precedent)?

Our dissenting colleagues argue that the doctrine of stare decisis requires adherence to a  broad reading of Belton even though the justifications for searching a vehicle incident to arrest are in most cases absent. The doctrine of stare decisis is of course "essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law," but it does not compel us to follow a past decision when its rationale no longer withstands "careful analysis." Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003).

I have no quarrel with that as long as it applies in both directions, not as a ratchet that regards pro-defendant precedents as sacrosanct and pro-prosecution precedents as subject to constant reexamination. Please remember your words, Justice Stevens, the next time the Court is presented with a claim under one of its many pro-defense precedents that is both unjustified as an original matter and a failure in practice. For example, there are the multiple extensions of the rule of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). One is at issue in Montejo v. Louisiana this term, previously noted here, and another is at issue in Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08-680 next term. Then there is the brooding omnipresence of capital punishment law, the disastrous Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).

The lineup in today's decision, BTW, included Justices Scalia and Thomas voting for the defendant and Justice Breyer voting for the prosecution.