Here’s the case brief for Chimel v. California. I ruthlessly edited it down to only three pages this time.
Chimel is interesting because it helped to define the limits of a search “incident to arrest”. Mr. Chimel was arrested, at his home, and charged with burglary of a coin shop. After he was arrested, the police searched his entire house (even having his wife move stuff around) without a warrant, and claimed they didn’t need one since their search was incident to a valid arrest.
The Court said, “Nope. Doesn’t work like that. ‘Search incident to arrest’ only covers the person and the area under the person’s immediate control. You want to search someplace other than that? Get a warrant.”
We’re wrapping this class up. Next Monday is the final; there should be one more case brief, too.