case study BY kytre126 Case study Chimel vs.
California Citation 395 u. s. 752 1969 Facts: There was a warrant for an offender who supposedly robbed a coin shop. Two officers decided to locate the offender’s house where they meet the offender’s wife. Having a conversation the two officers ask the offender wife can they come inside the house and which she agreed to? Waiting for the offender who committed the crime shows up minutes later.
After the offender recognizes that they were two police officers at his home he denied there request to search his home.Police officers nstead continue to search around the house without a warrant only to find out evidence that was use in the breaking of the coin shop but against offender’s objections. Issue: where a defendant is lawfully inside his home, is a warrantless search of the area beyond the defendant’s immediate control constitutional? Supreme Court Decision: The search was unreasonable under the 4th and 14th amendments. In arresting officer may search only 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.Any other search of the urrounding area requires a search warrant. Reason: The general rule allowing warrantless search of the person of an ar?©te and of the area. “Within his control is based upon a policy Judgment.
The reason behind this choice was that police officers have an interest in preservation of evidence for trail However; searches beyond this limited scope are unconstitutional. Case Signifance: The 4th amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America. Related Cases: U. S. Vs. Rabinowitz Officer search his office without a search warrant and seized the stamps