Chimel v. California 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

• Author: Jacob W. Landynski
• Pages: 355

Page 355

In Chimel the Supreme Court considerably narrowed the prevailing scope of SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST, by limiting the search to the person of the arrestee and his immediate environs. The Court thus ended a divisive, decades-long debate on the subject.

The principle that officers executing a valid arrest may simultaneously search the arrestee for concealed weapons or EVIDENCE has never been challenged; it is rooted in COMMON LAW, and was recognized by the Court in WEEKS V. UNITED STATES (1914) as an emergency exception to the FOURTH AMENDMENT'S warrant requirement. That the search may extend beyond the person to the premises in which the arrest is made was recognized in AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES (1925). The extension, too, has never been challenged; it seems sensible to permit officers to eliminate the possibility of a suspect's seizing a gun or destroying evidence within his reach though not on his person. The permissible scope of a warrantless search of the premises has, however, embroiled the Court in controversy.

Some Justices would have allowed a search of the entire place, arguing that after an arrest, even an extensive search is only a minor additional invasion of privacy. The opposing camp, led by Justice FELIX FRANKFURTER, condemned such wholesale rummaging: to allow a search incident to arrest to extend beyond the need that justified it would swallow up the rule requiring a...