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.

Popular posts from this blog

In chapter one of The Great Gatsby, what advice does Nick's father give him? How does this make him a good person to tell this story?

Nick says that his father advised him that, before "criticizing anyone," he "remember that all the people in this world haven't had the same advantages" as Nick.  As a result, Nick claims that he is "inclined to reserve all judgments," presenting himself to the reader as a fair and dispassionate arbiter of character, and thus, a reliable narrator.   The problem is that Nick immediately reveals himself as anything but reliable, as he then launches... Nick says that his father advised him that, before "criticizing anyone," he "remember that all the people in this world haven't had the same advantages" as Nick.  As a result, Nick claims that he is "inclined to reserve all judgments," presenting himself to the reader as a fair and dispassionate arbiter of character, and thus, a reliable narrator.   The problem is that Nick immediately reveals himself as anything but reliable, as he then launches into a discussion of how pe...
Post a Comment
Read more

How and why does James Gatz become Jay Gatsby? Describe the young Gatsby/Gatz.

James Gatz, a poor Midwestern boy of probable Jewish lineage, becomes Jay Gatsby, a presumed WASP and wealthy socialite, when he moves to New York City and acquires his fortune. It is wealth that has allowed Gatz to transform himself into Gatsby. However, those who know his background (e.g., Daisy and Tom Buchanan) never allow him to forget that he is nouveau riche -- that is, an upstart who has just recently made his fortune,... James Gatz, a poor Midwestern boy of probable Jewish lineage, becomes Jay Gatsby, a presumed WASP and wealthy socialite, when he moves to New York City and acquires his fortune. It is wealth that has allowed Gatz to transform himself into Gatsby. However, those who know his background (e.g., Daisy and Tom Buchanan) never allow him to forget that he is nouveau riche -- that is, an upstart who has just recently made his fortune, whereas they arose from well-to-do families. Gatz became Gatsby through determination and discipline. At the end of the novel, the narr...
Post a Comment
Read more

Explain and discuss how the definitions of freedom change for the nation, for the freedmen and for southern whites after the Civil War.

After the Civil War, the definition of freedom changed in the nation, as slavery was ended with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865. The practice of slavery was disallowed, but definition of the freedom that would take its place was a subject of controversy, ongoing debate, and even violence in the decades to come.  For freedmen, freedom often meant reconciling with their families, who were broken up by slavery; choosing which church to... After the Civil War, the definition of freedom changed in the nation, as slavery was ended with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865. The practice of slavery was disallowed, but definition of the freedom that would take its place was a subject of controversy, ongoing debate, and even violence in the decades to come.  For freedmen, freedom often meant reconciling with their families, who were broken up by slavery; choosing which church to belong to without being ordered to attend religious services (or not to attend) by their mast...
Post a Comment
Read more