Facts
Officers arrived at the home of Chimel with a warrant for his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop. The officers asked Chimel for permission to look around. Chimel objected but was advised they would nonetheless conduct the search. No search warrant was issued. The officers seized numerous items, primarily coins.
Procedural History
The items taken from Chimel’s home were admitted at trial and Chimel was convicted. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Was the warrantless search of Chimel’s home constitutionally justified as incident to his arrest?
Holding(s)
No.
Reasoning/Analysis
The Court found that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable to search the person arrested and the area into which the arrestee might grab to remove any weapons. There is no comparable justification for routinely searching any room other than that in which the arrest occurs. The search here went far beyond the petitioner’s person and the area from which he might have obtained either a weapon or something that could have been used as evidence against him.
Judgment/Outcome
The Court reversed the judgment of the lower courts.
No comments:
Post a Comment