te we get to the case, you shou a weapon or to destroy evidence ever mention abo
ID: 1103948 • Letter: T
Question
te we get to the case, you shou a weapon or to destroy evidence ever mention about what officers do in practice mediately to availabl ld be aware of one critical fact the cases ha Errup docket According handcuff them. e evidence, after officers arrest suspects, they immediately it's what police cadets are trained to do; it's you read Chimel and all partment rules prescribe: what most officers do (Moskovitz 2002). Keep this in mind as the materials in this section on searches incident to ar one way says, Sam u.s. Supreme Court reversed Ted Chimel's conviction for the burglary of a se his home was searched without a warrant or his permission ant, CASE the Was the Search "Incident" to the Arrest? Chimel v. California 395 US. 752 (1969) the officers handed him the arrest warrant and asked for e burglary of a coin shop. permission to "look around." Chimel objected, but was n the Superior Court, Orange County, advised that "on the basis of the lawful arrest," the officers HISTORY Ted Chimel was prosecuted for the burglary of a coin shop. to onetheless conduct a search. No search warrant California, and appealed. The California Supreme Court would n affirmed, and Chimel petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court had been issued. for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted the writ and reversed the California Supreme Court's judgment. Accompanied by Chimel's wife, the officers then ing the attic, the garage, and a smallworkshop. In some rooms the search was relatively cursory. In the master looked through the entire three-bedroom house, includ- -STEWART, J. bedroom and sewing room, however, the officers directed FACTS Late in the afternoon of September 13, 1965, three policecontents of the drawers from side to side so that (they) officers arrived at the Santa Ana, California, home of Ted might view any items that would have come from (the) Chimel with a warrant authorizing his arrest for thebur burglary." After completing the search, they seized numer- glary of a coin shop. The officers knocked on the door, ous items-primarily coins, but also several medals, identified themselves to Chimel's wife, and asked if they tokens, and a few other objects. The entire search took might come inside. She ushered them into the house, between 45 minutes and an hour. where they waited 10 or 15 minutes until Chimel returned Mrs. Chimel to open drawers and "to physically move At Chimel's subsequent state trial on two charges of (continued) home from work. When Chimel entered the house, one of burglary, the items taken from his house were admittedExplanation / Answer
1) After Chimel's arrest,police started searching Chimel's three bedroom's house, including garage, attic and a small workshop. In one of the rooms, they asked Chimel's wife to open the drawers and looked for the possible hiding of the stolen coins. This was done in order to ensure that there should be no weapons kept in the house which Chimelmight use for his escapeand also to find out the coins burled by Chimel from the shop.
2) Within immediate control means the area which the police officers can access at the time of arrest of Chimel. As the arrest tookplace at Chimel's house,so it includes the entire house which was within immediate control of the police officers.
3) If I was defining the phrase,I would have included the entire house, so as to avoid any chance of manipulating the evidences which was supposed to be there in the house.If the entire house is searched for,the prosecutor Chimel and his wife didnt get any chance tochange the evidences and all the probable places were looked for the evidences.
4) Justice Whitein his dissent,ahs clearly mentioned that waranless searches are necessarily unreasonable. It is quite unreasonable for the police toleave the scene of the arrest in order to obtain a search warrant when there is a valid raeson to search for the entire house and there is a chance of removing the items to be produced as evidence when the police goes and gets the warrant for search.
This arguement is quite valid,as at certain points,if the police is quite sure of the possible evidences and there is also a probability of manipulating the evidences,the police can directly go for search without support of any warrant.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.