There were cases where police officers arrived at a suspect’s residence with an arrest warrant but with no search permit for Chimel. After apprehending the accused, they proceeded to inspect his house. In the Case of Chimel versus California, the United States Supreme Court set the criteria for organizing a pursuit in case of a repeat of searches without warrants (JUSTIA, US Supreme Court, n.d). In California, the police officers had reasonable grounds to believe that Chimel perpetrated burglary where he stole coins and other valuables.
They acquired an arrest warrant concerning him versus California and went to his house, where his wife allowed them inside. When he came home, the officers arrested him, and without a search warrant, the officers ransacked the entire house based on the lawful arrest. The police found coins and other possessions in the bedroom, subsequently found as stolen in one of the robberies.
At the defendant’s trial, the prosecutor charged Chimel with burglary. He objected to the evidence retrieved from his bedroom, arguing that it was the outcome of an unconstitutional search. The court declared their judgment, which concluded that, regardless of their approval of the defendant’s refusal that the arrest warrant was void, it was constitutional. Furthermore, the search was substantiated as an incident to a constitutional arrest. The court also concluded that the warrantless search was reasonable because there was a valid reason to do so. According to Lampton (2016), a search of any location without the accused consent is unlawful unless there is an immediate threat that proof may be hidden or destroyed by the accused. That was the basis to which the officers pegged their unlawful but reasonable search. It was possible to prove it in a court of law.
A warrantless search is appropriate when there is specific danger of potential evidence being interfered with. The rationale for choosing this case is that an arrested has the right to disagree with the reason for his arrest. The other part of it is the burden of proof the police would work so hard to present to the courts. I would confirm that the search was legal because there were reasons for both the search and arrest.
References
JUSTIA, US Supreme Court. (n.d) Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). Web.
Lampton, S. (2016). Fourth amendment search incident to arrest in the home: Why Gant’s new vehicular rules should supersede Chimel. (Honors thesis, University of Mississippi, Oxford, United States). Web.