''Chimel v. California'', 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police officers

arrest An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody (legal protection or control), usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be questi ...

ing a person at home could not

search Searching or search may refer to: Computing technology * Search algorithm, including keyword search ** :Search algorithms * Search and optimization for problem solving in artificial intelligence * Search engine technology, software for findi ...

the entire home without a search warrant, but police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. The rule on

searches incident to a lawful arrest 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 to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, an ...

within the home is now known as the ''Chimel'' Rule. Ronald M. George, the young Deputy

Attorney General In most common law jurisdictions, the attorney general or attorney-general (sometimes abbreviated AG or Atty.-Gen) is the main legal advisor to the government. The plural is attorneys general. In some jurisdictions, attorneys general also have exec ...

who unsuccessfully argued the State of California's position before the high court, ultimately became Chief Justice of the State of California.

Background

In the court case of Chimel v. California (1969), police officers went into the home of Chimel with a warrant authorizing their arrest of Chimel on counts of burglary from a coin shop. The police officers were let into Chimel's home by his wife where they awaited his return home to serve him with his arrest warrant. Upon receiving his warrant for arrest, "Chimel denied the request of officers to look around" his home for further evidence. Ignoring Chimel, the police officers continued their search of Chimel's home "on the basis of the lawful arrest", and the police even "instructed Chimel's wife to remove items from drawers", where she eventually found coins and metals. Later at Chimel's trial for burglary charges, "items taken from his home were admitted over objection from Chimel that they had been unconstitutionally seized". However, a number of these items including the coins and medals that were taken from his home were used to convict Chimel. The "state courts upheld the conviction" of Chimel, even though he petitioned that the arrest warrant was not a valid warrant, considering that the police officers searched his home and found evidence that they used against him, without having a search warrant for his house. Prior to ''Chimel'', the Court's precedents permitted an arresting officer to search the area within an arrestee's "possession" and "control" for the purpose of gathering evidence. Based on the "abstract doctrine," it had sustained searches that extended far beyond an arrestee's grabbing area.

Issue

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

Decision and significance

The Supreme Court ruled 6–2 in favor of Chimel. It 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, police 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: It overturned the trial court conviction by 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."

Criticism

In a concurring/dissenting opinion in ''

Riley v. California ''Riley v. California'', 573 U.S. 373 (2014),''Riley v. California''573 U.S. 373(2014). is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone durin ...

'' (2014), citing his dissent in ''

Arizona v. Gant ''Arizona v. Gant'', 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safet ...

'' (2009), Justice Alito called ''Chimels reasoning "questionable:" "I think it is a mistake to allow that reasoning to affect cases like these that concern the search of the person of arrestees."''Riley v. California''
573 U.S. 373
(2014).

References

External links