Chimel V. California is a landmark case on the issue of search and seizures as stipulated in the Fourth Amendment. It has been published by credible websites such as the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), Justia US law, and The US Department of Justice which proves that it is real. The rationale for selecting this case is that in recent years there have been complains of police intrusion of privacy. For instance, Ortiz (2019) states that from 2011 to 2017 “police stopped and searched black and Latino drivers based on less evidence than…whites” (par.8). The objective of this paper is to analyze and summarize the chosen case and to derive legal lessons.
The actions of the law enforcers were not right since the Fourth Amendment only permits reasonable seizures and searches while proscribing if they are unreasonable. In summary, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) is a case where the defendant denied the police consent to intrude his home but they nonetheless proceeded (Justia 2020). The individual was suspected of burglary at a coin shop and the officers needed evidence. The issue was if warrantless search is constitutional in case of lawful arrest of an individual inside his home. The court held that any search beyond arrestee’s person and the location within his immediate jurisdiction is unreasonable. The dissenting judges argued that if there is an apparent danger of the suspect removing items of interest before the police can obtain a warrant then the action is justifiable. Given the diverse circumstances that need searches, it is not clear if having a warrant will always protect client’s rights.
When discussing the Fourth Amendment, the verdict made on the case introduces two new guidelines. First, it used the word “immediate” to qualify control such that warrantless search outside the boundaries of individuals’ exact jurisdiction is illegal. The reason for allowing minimal search is to secure any weapons, seize evidence and to prevent it from being concealed or destroyed (LeBlanc, 2018). This implies that the objective of searching is what determines the scope. Officers were fond of timing arrest so that it coincided with the presence of the defendant at home. Resultantly, they would assess the entire house because it was assuming that the client had constructive control over it. After the Chimel case, the police could no longer inspect without a warrant and a well-stipulated scope of the search.
The other legal aspect that can be drawn from the case is that arrest is different from search. It is, therefore, necessary for officers to follow the required procedures before they intrude the premises of a suspect. The police must always have a warrant unless it is hot pursuits, vehicular search, and stop and frisk. Search incidences to arrest vary from other legal exceptions such that it allows the government to intrude without a warrant and probable cause when it is believed that evidence will be collected (LeBlanc, 2018). The officer is justified to search within the immediate control of the offender for safety reasons and evidence preservation
Conclusively, Chimel v. California clarified the scope of search during an arrest as stipulated in the Fourth Amendment. The police officers were guilty of an unlawful search of the house of a suspect. The rationale is that the individual has a right not to be unreasonably seized or searched by the government. Intrusion is only allowed during an arrest if it is limited to the person and immediate environment. Otherwise, the officers must come prepared with a warrant since arrest does not qualify search. The rationale is to ensure that the privacy and dignity of the suspects are respected.
References
Justia. (2020). Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). Justia Law. Web.
LeBlanc, J. A. (2018). “A search is a search”: Scanning a credit, debit, or gift card is a search under the fourth amendment. Boston College.Law School.Boston College Law Review, 59(3), 1089-1120. Web.
Ortiz, E. (2019). Inside 100 million police traffic stops: New evidence of racial bias. Web.