D2019. LAW 124: Criminal Procedure. Prof. Bautista.

Chimel v. California
June 23, 1969, MR. JUSTICE STEWART

Searches incidental to lawful arrests

PETITIONER: Chimel
RESPONDENT: California Courts
CRIMINAL OFFENSES: 2 Charges of burglary
Sept. 13, 1965. (Late afternoon)- 3 police officers arrived at home of petitioner in Sta. Ana California
with a warrant authorizing his arrest for a burglary of a coin shop
Officers knocked on the door, identified themselves to the petitioners wife, and asked if they could
come inside
Wife ushered them inside their home
Officers waited 10-15 minutes for the petitioner to return from work
Petitioner entered the house and one of the officers handed him the arrest warrant. They asked for
permission to look around
Petitioner objected. Officers advised him that on the basis of the lawful arrest, they would
conduct a search anyway
No search warrant was issued
Accompanied by petitioners wife, officers looked through the entire 3-bedroom house including the
o Garage
o Attic
o Small workshop
In the other rooms, search was relatively cursory but in the masters bedroom ad sewing room, the
officers asked the petitioners wife to open drawers and to physically remove contents of the
drawers from side to side so that they may view items that would have come from the burglary
After the search, they seized numerous items (primarily coins but also included several medals,
tokens and other objects) admitted as evidence against petitioner
Duration of the search: 45 mins-1 hour
Procedural
Police arrived with arrest warrant for burglary
Conducted search on the basis of the lawful arrest looked around the house and asked wife to
open drawers and move stuff around
Seized items and admitted them into evidence
California court convicted him of the 2 charges of burglary
Affirmed by California Court of Appeal While the reasonableness of a search incident to arrest
depends upon "the facts and circumstances -- arresting officers had procured the warrant "in good
faith," and since, in any event, they had had sufficient information to constitute probable cause for the
petitioner's arrest, that arrest had been lawful
Affirmed by California Supreme Court
Petitioner appealed through Certiorari granted Certiorari in order to consider petitioners
substantial claims
ACTIONS/MOTIONS/PLEADINGS FILED:
ACTIONS/MOTIONS/
PLEADINGS FILED:

FILED
BY:

REASON:

FILED WITH:

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS:

DECISION:

REASON:

D2019. LAW 124: Criminal Procedure. Prof. Bautista.

WON warrantless search of the petitioner's entire house can be constitutionally justified as incident to that
arrest NO
DOCTRINES:
An arresting officer may search the arrestee's person to discover and remove weapons and to
seize evidence to prevent its concealment or destruction, and may search 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
For the routine search of rooms other than that in which an arrest occurs, or for
searching desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself, absent
well recognized exceptions, a search warrant is required.
While the reasonableness of a search incident to arrest depends upon "the facts and
circumstances -- the total atmosphere of the case," those facts and circumstances must be
viewed in the light of established Fourth Amendment principles, and the only reasoned
distinction is one between
o (1) a search of the person arrested and the area within his reach, and
o (2) more extensive searches.
CASE RESOLUTION:
Court looked at several jurisprudence on the matter
Overturned doctrine in United States v. Rabinowitz and Harris v. United States
There is no comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which
an arrest occurs -- or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or
concealed areas in that room itself.
Such searches, in the absence of well recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of
a search warrant.
Application of sound Fourth Amendment principles to the facts of this case produces a clear result.
The search here went far beyond 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.
There was no constitutional justification, in the absence of a search warrant, for extending the search
beyond that area.
The scope of the search was, therefore, "unreasonable" under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments,
and the petitioner's conviction cannot stand.
DISPOSITION: California Court decision reversed
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring.
Zyra Aquilizan