Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the ''Chimel'' rule (from '' Chimel v. California''), is a U.S. legal principle that allows

police The police are a constituted body of persons empowered by a state, with the aim to enforce the law, to ensure the safety, health and possessions of citizens, and to prevent crime and civil disorder. Their lawful powers include arrest and th ...

to perform a

warrantless search A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, ...

of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the preservation of evidence. In most cases, a

search warrant A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, ...

pursuant to the Fourth Amendment is required to perform a lawful search; an exception to this requirement is SITA.

Related case law

1940s

*In ''Harris v. United States'' (1947), the

United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

held that a law enforcement officer was permitted to perform a warrantless search during or immediately after a lawful arrest of the arrestee and their premises, regardless of what the arrest was for.

1950s

*In '' United States v. Rabinowitz'' (1950), the court narrowed its ruling to searches of the area within the arrestee's "immediate control."

1960s

*In '' Chimel v. California'' (1969), the Court further limited the exception to the person arrested and the area within their immediate control "in order to remove any weapons that the rresteemight seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape" and to prevent the "concealment or destruction" of evidence.

1970s

*'' United States v. Robinson'' (1973) – The U.S. Supreme Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment."

1990s

*'' Maryland v. Buie'' (1990) – The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.

2000s

*'' Arizona v. Gant'' (2009) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers can search automobiles following arrest only if the person arrested "could have accessed his car at the time of the search." In other words, if the person arrested could conceivably reach into his car for a weapon, then a search based on officer safety is permitted. Otherwise, the old practice of allowing officers to "search carincident to arrest" is no longer allowed, unless the police have reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

2010s

* ''

Missouri v. McNeely ''Missouri v. McNeely'', 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumsta ...

'' (2013) The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent. *'' Riley v. California'' (2014) – The U.S. Supreme Court held that "police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested." In other words, unless an

exigent circumstance In criminal procedure law of the United States, an exigent circumstance allows law enforcement (under certain circumstances) to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a " knock and announce" warrant, allows them to enter withou ...

is present, police may not search an arrestee's cell phone without a warrant. *''

Birchfield v. North Dakota ''Birchfield v. North Dakota'', 579 U.S. ___ (2016) is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the search incident to arrest doctrine permits law enforcement to conduct warrantless breath tests but not blood tests on sus ...

'' (2016) - The U.S. Supreme Court held that for driving under the influence investigations warrantless

breathalyzer A breathalyzer or breathalyser (a portmanteau of ''breath'' and ''analyzer/analyser'') is a device for estimating blood alcohol content (BAC), or to detect viruses or diseases from a breath sample. The name is a genericized trademark of the Br ...

tests are permissible under the fourth amendment given that impact on privacy is "slight" while more intrusive blood tests involving piercing the skin are not. In the opinion of the court, the court states that "there must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads" under

implied consent Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation (or in some cases, by a person's silence or inaction). For examp ...

laws and "that motorists could be deemed to have consented to only those conditions that are 'reasonable' in that they have a 'nexus' to the privilege of driving".