Skip to main content

What were the arguments in Chimel v. California?

In the case of Chimel V. California (1969), police suspected that Chimel had robbed a rare coin store. They went to his house with an arrest warrant, and his wife let them in. They arrested him when he came home and asked him for consent to search, which he did not grant them. While inside, they searched the premises and found the coins. The police argued that they had the right to search the home...

In the case of Chimel V. California (1969), police suspected that Chimel had robbed a rare coin store. They went to his house with an arrest warrant, and his wife let them in. They arrested him when he came home and asked him for consent to search, which he did not grant them. While inside, they searched the premises and found the coins. The police argued that they had the right to search the home because they were already inside and had a lawful arrest warrant for Chimel.


Chimel argued that while the arrest was lawful, the search was not. He appealed on the basis that they did not have a search warrant, only an arrest warrant. He argued that the evidence was inadmissible in court due to the fact that it was obtained unlawfully, and therefore could not be used against him in a court of law. Chimel believed that this constituted an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.


The prosecution, of course, insisted that the search and seizure were both lawful, due to the fact that the police had an arrest warrant. They argued that this gave the police the right to search the entire house, and that it was considered a "search incident to a lawful arrest," or SILA. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction, but Chimel appealed again. It was eventually overturned and reversed by the Supreme Court which ruled that the arresting officer only has the power to search the area "within the immediate control" of the person being arrested.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the meaning of "juggling fiends" in Macbeth?

Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a... Macbeth is beginning to realize that the three witches have been deceiving him since he first encountered them. Like jugglers, they have kept changing their forecasts in order create confusion. This is particularly apparent when the Second Apparition they raise in Act IV,   Scene 1 tells him that no man of woman born can overcome him in hand-to-hand battle--and then Macbeth finds himself confronted by the one man he has been avoiding out of a sense of guilt, and that man tells him: Despair thy charm. And let the angel whom thou still hast serve...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why did Tybalt attack and kill Mercutio instead of Romeo, who he had originally been targeting?

Though Tybalt's quarrel is with Romeo, he begins the momentous duel in Act 3 by fighting with and killing Mercutio instead. Tybalt ultimately attacks Mercutio because the garrulous and hot-headed character insults Tybalt and goads him into a duel to protect Romeo's honor. From the beginning of the encounter in Act 3, Scene 1, it's clear that Mercutio is itching for a fight. For instance, when Tybalt signals that he wants to talk to Mercutio... Though Tybalt's quarrel is with Romeo, he begins the momentous duel in Act 3 by fighting with and killing Mercutio instead. Tybalt ultimately attacks Mercutio because the garrulous and hot-headed character insults Tybalt and goads him into a duel to protect Romeo's honor. From the beginning of the encounter in Act 3, Scene 1, it's clear that Mercutio is itching for a fight. For instance, when Tybalt signals that he wants to talk to Mercutio and Benvolio, Mercutio responds "And but one word with one of us?/ Couple it w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Follow the relationship between Pi and Richard Parker. They endure over two hundred days of hardship together, but in the end Richard Parker leaves...

When Pi and Richard Parker are at the beginning of their journey, after Pi's family is killed in the shipwreck, Pi fears Richard Parker, but he is forced to find a way to co-exist with him in order to survive.  Over time the two develop a somewhat co-dependent relationship.  Richard Parker depends on Pi to feed him by catching fish, while Pi's will to live is bolstered by Richard Parker's presence.  Richard Parker recognizes that... When Pi and Richard Parker are at the beginning of their journey, after Pi's family is killed in the shipwreck, Pi fears Richard Parker, but he is forced to find a way to co-exist with him in order to survive.  Over time the two develop a somewhat co-dependent relationship.  Richard Parker depends on Pi to feed him by catching fish, while Pi's will to live is bolstered by Richard Parker's presence.  Richard Parker recognizes that he also needs Pi to survive.  At one point in the book, Pi's starvation and thirst reduce him to a st...
Post a Comment
Read more