Você está na página 1de 3

Gregnnecia Darrett Legal Writing 08/27/2012 Professor Kelsaw

Chimney v. California
Case Name& Citation:
Chimel v. California 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 203

Procedural History:
Both courts accepted that the search warrant was invalid as argued by the petitioner, but both the California Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court both ruled that since the officers had got the arrest warrant in good faith and had enough information to constitute probable cause that the arrest was lawful. The courts ruled that the search of the petitioners home had been justified. A writ of certiorari was granted to the petitioner by the Supreme Court in order to consider his constitutional claims.

Facts:
3 police officers arrived at the petitioners house but Chimel was not at home so his wife answered and the police were given entrance into the house. They waited for Chimels arrival which took about ten to fifteen minutes. When Chimel arrived he was greeted by an arrest warrant not a search warrant. The asked for permission to look around and at first Chimel resisted but was told the search could be done for a lawful arrest so they were given permission. The police officer searched everywhere including the attic, garage, workshop, drawers. They found various items that could convict the petitioner, that were used in court even though the petitioner claimed they were admitted unconstitutionally.

Ps Theory:
The petitioner is arguing that the search of his house outside of his immediate surroundings was wrong due to the fourth amendment.

Rs Theory:
That the court was correct in ruling that the search was valid constitutionally because the arrest warrant was procured in good faith and the police officers had probable cause for the arrest so the arrest was lawful even though no search warrant was given.

Significant Key Facts:


The fact that no search warrant was obtained before the search took pace caused the search to be unconstitutional even though there were grounds for probable cause.

Page 1

Gregnnecia Darrett Legal Writing 08/27/2012 Professor Kelsaw

Key Authority Doctrine:


Judge Stewarts holding was based on the decision of United States v. Rabinowitz and that the search was unreasonable under the fourth amendment. The Court held that a warrantless search was reasonable only items that were in reach of person such as whatever is in his or her pockets as well as or anything that is in reach of the person such as drawers to help protect the officers.

Issue:
Whether the courts were correct in holding that the arrest of the petitioner was constitutionally valid? Whether the warrantless search of the petitioners entire house can be constitutionally justified as incident to that arrest?

Holding:
No, the district courts judgment is reversed.

Reasoning:
There is only probable cause to search an individuals house when there is clear danger of escape and the officers life is endanger. They are only to search the petitioners immediate surroundings without a search warrant. Due to the circumstances and situations that police officers are placed in will create additional burdens for officers. The requirement of having a search warrant may not protect everyone but that is unclear.

Disposition:
Reversed

Rule:
A search without a search warrant that goes beyond the person being arrested immediate control is unconstitutional by the fourth amendment:

Exception: unless there is clear danger that evidence will be destroyed or threat of harm to the
officer that is arresting.

Page 2

Gregnnecia Darrett Legal Writing 08/27/2012 Professor Kelsaw

Page 3

Você também pode gostar