Chimel v. California
1969 U.S. Supreme Court case allowing the warrantless search of a lawfully arrested person / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Chimel v. California?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant.[1] The rule on searches incident to a lawful arrest within the home is now known as the Chimel rule.[2]
Quick Facts Chimel v. California, Argued March 27, 1969 Decided June 23, 1969 ...
Chimel v. California | |
---|---|
Argued March 27, 1969 Decided June 23, 1969 | |
Full case name | Ted Chimel v. State of California |
Citations | 395 U.S. 752 (more) 89 S. Ct. 2034; 23 L. Ed. 2d 685; 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1166 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Conviction affirmed, People v. Chimel, 61 Cal. Rptr. 714 (Ct. App. 1967); affirmed, 68 Cal. 2d 436, 439 P.2d 333 (1968); cert. granted, 393 U.S. 958 (1968). |
Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969). |
Holding | |
An 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 surrounding area requires a search warrant. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Stewart, joined by Warren, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Marshall |
Concurrence | Harlan |
Dissent | White, joined by Black |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
Close
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Ronald M. George, the young deputy attorney general who unsuccessfully argued California's case, ultimately became chief justice of the Supreme Court of California.[3]