Chimel v.

California

Chimel v. California
Chimel v. California

Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 27, 1969 Decided June 23, 1969 Full case name Citations Ted Chimel v. State of California 395 U.S. 752 [1] (more)

89 S. Ct. 2034; 23 L. Ed. 2d 685; 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1166 Prior history Subsequent history Argument Certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. 68 Cal. 2d 436, 439 P.2d 333, reversed. Oral argument Holding An arresting officer may search only the area "within the immediate control" of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. Any other search of the surrounding area requires a search warrant. Court membership Case opinions Majority Concurrence Dissent Stewart, joined by Warren, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Fortas, Marshall Harlan White, joined by Black Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. IV U.S. Const. amend. XIV [2]

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)citation, is a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1969. In the case, the Court held that police officers arresting a person in his or her home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they can search the area within immediate reach of the person. The rule relating to searches incident to a lawful arrest established in this case is known as the Chimel rule. The young Deputy Attorney General who unsuccessfully argued the State of California's position before the high court was Ronald M. George, who would ultimately retire as Chief Justice of California.

Chimel v. California

Issue
Could the warrantless search of Chimel's entire house be constitutionally justified as incident to his arrest?

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chimel 7-2. The Court held that the search of Chimel's house was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reasoned that searches "incident to arrest" are limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect. While police could reasonably search and seize evidence on or around the arrestee's person, they were prohibited from rummaging through the entire house without a search warrant. The Court emphasized the importance of warrants and probable cause as necessary bulwarks against government abuse. When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the arrestee latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer's safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee's person and the area "within his immediate control"construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. There is no comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occursor, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant. The "adherence to judicial processes" mandated by the Fourth Amendment requires no less. Justice Stewart, delivering the opinion of the Court The Court overturned the conviction, stating that the officers could reasonably search only "the petitioner's person and the area from within which he might have obtained either a weapon or something that could have been used as evidence against him."[3]

References
[1] https:/ / supreme. justia. com/ us/ 395/ 752/ case. html [2] http:/ / www. oyez. org/ cases/ 1960-1969/ 1968/ 1968_770/ argument/ [3] Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (http:/ / supreme. justia. com/ us/ 395/ 752/ case. html), p. 768 (U.S. Sup. Ct.).

External links
Text of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) is available from: Justia (http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/ 752/case.html) Findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US& vol=395&page=752) Resource.org (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/395/395.US.752.770. html) Search Incident to Arrest (http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-04/14-search-incident-to-arrest. html), US Supreme Court Center, Justia.com.

Article Sources and Contributors

Article Sources and Contributors

Chimel v. California Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=542017969 Contributors: Alansohn, BD2412, Bamyers99, Bender235, CapitalR, Cdogsimmons, Chrylis, Coolcaesar, Dadoox02, Dawn Bard, Dmaccinstructor, Eastlaw, Elonka, Fluffernutter, FtWashGuy, Fvasconcellos, GI JOE SNAKE EYES, Good Olfactory, Guy0307, I dream of horses, ISTB351, Iridescent, James086, Johnny06man, Jsgoodrich, K8lj, Legalskeptic, Lisasmall, MZMcBride, Macwhiz, Moe Epsilon, Necrothesp, Neutrality, Picpoule, Savidan, Seaphoto, Sodfijd, ThreeOneFive, Tim!, Timotheus Canens, Torreslfchero, Zeroday, 54 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

Image:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg License: unknown Contributors: Ipankonin

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/