Parties
Ted Chimel (complainant) v. the State of California (defendant)
Facts
Police officers were dispatched to arrest Chimel on burglary accusations from a coin shop went to wait for him at his home where they would execute their operation. The officers requested to search the home for evidence after serving him with the arrest warrant, but Chimel refused. They, however, went ahead to search all over the house, confiscating some items to use as evidence against Chimel. Chimel alleged that the police went past the arrest warrant and conducted a search of his home without a warrant.
Prior Proceedings
The case was presented in the State courts for trial, and the conviction was upheld. The court allowed the admission of the items gathered from Chimel’s home as part of the evidence. Chimel petitioned to the Supreme Court on claims that the police confiscated some items from his home yet they did not have a search warrant.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Issues in the Case
Is it constitutional to treat a warrantless search as an incident of arrest?
Arguments
Chimel argued that the evidence used against him was gathered unconstitutionally while responding to issue of the admission of items collected from the warrantless search of the house to the case.
Holding
An officer of the law tasked with arresting a suspect is only allowed to search the area that the arrestee can control and access a weapon or destroy materials that could be used as evidence. Any other area beyond this requires a warrant to search. The trial court conviction was overturned.
Rationale
The warrantless search of the house of the person being arrested is unconstitutional and cannot be regarded as an incident of arrest
Relation to Integrity
The police officers arresting Chimel contravened the core value of integrity by proceeding to search the house even when the homeowner denied them consent besides lacking the search warrant.
