Chimel v. California
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Chimel v. California | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||||||
| Argued March 27, 1969 Decided June 23, 1969 |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Earl Warren Associate Justices: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall |
||||||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||||||
| Majority by: Stewart Joined by: Burger, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Fortas, Marshall Concurrence by: Harlan Dissent by: White Joined by: Black |
||||||||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | ||||||||||||||||
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that police officers could search only within the immediate area of a suspect who was being arrested.
Contents |
[edit] Facts
Police went to Chimel's home with a warrant authorizing his arrest for burglary. Upon serving him with the arrest warrant, the officers conducted a comprehensive search of Chimel's residence. The search uncovered a number of items that were later used to convict Chimel. State courts upheld the conviction.
[edit] Issue
Whether the warrantless search of Chimel's home is constitutionally justified under the Fourth Amendment as "incident to that arrest?"
[edit] Holding
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.
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction, stating that the officers could reasonably search only the area within the immediate control of the suspect, as that area is where the suspect could reasonably reach for a weapon to threaten an officer or destroy inculpatory evidence.
