Sunday, January 13, 2019

Chimel v. California case brief

    1. Chimel v. California case brief summary

      1. Police had an arrest warrant for Chimel and waited in his home let in by his wife until he got home. When he got home they asked if they could look around and he objected but they did nonetheless without a search warrant
      2. They got an arrest warrant because they had probable cause that he robbed the coin shop
      3. They searched the whole house even the attic and garage. They had the wife open drawers and move content around
      4. The arrest was valid. The issue is whether the search was valid
        1. Police: we have an arrest warrant and probable cause- why can’t we just search
      5. When an arrest is made it is reasonable for the officer to search the person
        1. Reasonable for them to search the area within his immediate control where he may be able to gain possession of a weapon
      6. There is no justification for searching any room other the one the arrest occurs in or even desk drawers in the room itself
        1. They could’ve easily gotten a search warrant
        2. The search would have been okay if it was the just the immediate area around him
      7. DISSENT: The D is already in police custody of a lawful arrest- it is reasonable to search
        1. If the police have to leave to get a warrant it could obstruct evidence
      8. If this came out the other way, general search warrants would be permissible. There would be no incentive for search warrants

Support us by: 
Visiting: to rid yourself of that almost criminal social media addiction. Checking out our amazing store on Etsy:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.