You are on page 1of 1

Chimel vs. California June 23, 1969 J. Stewart FACTS: Sept.

. 13, 1965: 3 police officers arrived at the petitioners home with an arrest warrant (but NO search warrant) for alleged coin shop burglary. Petitioners wife let them in, where they waited 10-15 minutes until petitioner had returned home from work. Upon petitioners return, officers handed him the warrant & asked for permission to look around, to which the petitioner objected, but because it was on the basis of lawful arrest they conducted the search anyway. Officers searched for 45 mins-1 hour. They seized coins, several medals, tokens, and a few other objects. The items were admitted into evidence, and he was convicted. His conviction was affirmed by both California CA and SC, which held that since the arresting officers had procured the warrant "in good faith," and since they had had sufficient information to constitute probable cause for the petitioner's arrest, that arrest had been lawful despite the absent of a search warrant.

Issue: Whether the warrantless search of an petitioners entire house can be constitutionally justified as incident to the arrest itself? (NO. Conviction overturned.) Ratio: The decision of the Supreme Court was based on the decision of United States v. Rabinowitz in that the search was unreasonable under the 4th and 14th Ammendments. In this case, it was held that a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest may generally extend to the area that is considered to be in the possession or under the control of the person arrested. The Court held that a warrantless search was reasonable only if it is of the defendants person i.e. whatever he/she has in pockets, etc. as well as anything that may be in reach such as a weapon in a nearby drawer. 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 latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. It is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestees person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule. However, the Court felt that there was no comparable justification, for routinely searching rooms other than that in which an arrest occurs Such searches, in the absence of well recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant. The court held the opinion that the 4th Amendment, at no point, allowed a search to go beyond that of the area where the person is arrested from which the person might obtain weapons or evidentiary items.

You might also like