Ted CHIMEL v.

CALIFORNIA
395 U.S. 752 / June 23, 1969 / Stewart, J. / Warrantless search and seizure

SUMMARY. Chimels house was searched on the basis of his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop, and items seized secured
his conviction. SC overturned his conviction as the search of the house violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
DOCTRINE. 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

ISSUE
WON the warrantless search of Chimels house is constitutionally justified under the Fourth Amendment as incident
to his arrest NO.
FACTS

On September 13, 1965, three police officers, armed with an arrest warrant for Chimels burglary of a coin shop
but without search warrant, were admitted to his Santa Ana, California home by his wife, where they waited for
Chimels arrival for fen to fifteen minutes

Although petitioner upon arriving denied the officers' request to "look around," they conducted a cursory search
of the entire three-bedroom house "on the basis of the lawful arrest including the attic, the garage, and a small
workshop and a thorough search in the master bedroom and sewing room where Chimels wife was ordered to
open drawers and move their contents from side to side so that might view items taken from the burglary

At petitioner's trial on burglary charges, several coins, medals, tokens, and a few other objects taken from his
home were admitted over objection that they had been unconstitutionally seized

His conviction was affirmed by the California appellate courts, which held, despite their acceptance of
petitioner's contention that the arrest warrant was invalid, that, since the 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 arrest, the arrest was lawful. The courts also held that the search was justified as incident to a valid
arrest.
RATIO

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, 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 (1) a search of the person arrested
and the area within his reach, and (2) more extensive searches.

The two preceding cases are no longer to be followed as they do not justify broad application of their doctrines:
(1) US v. Rabinowitz held that a warrantless search "incident to a lawful arrest" may generally extend to the
area that is considered to be in the "possession" or under the "control" of the person arrested, particularly in
that case the petitioner's entire house. (2) Harris v. United States upheld the apartment search to recover two
canceled checks thought to have been used in effecting forgery, and the opening of a sealed envelope in a
closed a desk drawer

The scope of the search here was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as it went
beyond petitioner's person and the area from within which he might have obtained a weapon or something that
could have been used as evidence against him, and there was no constitutional justification, in the absence of
a search warrant, for extending the search beyond that area.