Chimel vs California

Facts:
1. On the afternoon of September 13, 1965, 3 police officers
arrived at the accused-petitioners house in Sta. Anna
California. The police officers were executing a warrant of
arrest for the burglary of a coin shop.
2. Upon arriving at the premise, the police officers knocked at
the door of the petitioner, to which the latters wife
answered. They asked if they could come in, to which the
wife ushered them inside. They waited for 10 to 15 minutes
until petitioner arrived.
3. The police officers handed the warrant of arrest, to which
they asked permission to the petitioner if they could look
around. The petitioner objected, but the officers advised
him that since it was a lawful arrest, they were nonetheless
going to conduct the search.
4. The officers conducted the search throughout the house
(some a cursory search). However, in the masters bedroom
and sewing room, the officers directed the wife to open
drawers and to physically move contents. After the search,
they seized numerous items such as coins, medals tokens and
other things.
5. At the trial, the things seized were admitted to evidence,
even if petitioner objected, stating that they were
unconstitutionally seized. He was convicted and the
judgment was affirmed by both the California Court of
Appeals and the California Supreme Court.
The
Issue: WoN the warrantless search is justified on the occasion of a
valid arrest? (There is a warrant of arrest, however there is no search
warrant).
Ruling: No, the search of the house is not constitutionally justified,
even in the instance of the arrest.
Ratio:

The Court, without deciding the question (issue regarding

the warrantless search), proceeded on the hypothesis of the
California courts that the arrest was valid under the Constitution.
What is to be decided at the present case is the issue regarding the
warrantless search. First we have to exclude what is not in this case.
When a man is legally arrested for an offense, whatever is found
upon his person or in his control which it is unlawful for him to have
and which may be used to prove the offense may be seized and held
as evidence in the prosecution. It is still the general rule that a
search warrant must be secured whenever reasonable and practicable
in seizing goods and articles by law enforcers. This rule rest upon the
desirable idea that the magistrates determine when searches and
seizures are permissible and what limitations should be placed upon
such activities, rather than police officers. A search or seizure
without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest has always been
considered to be a strictly limited right. It grows out of the inherent
necessities of the situation at the time of the arrest. But there must be
something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest.
The Court stated that the test is not whether it is reasonable to
procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable."
The presence of a search warrant is not mere formalities, it
serves a high function. Absent some grave emergency, the Fourth
Amendment has interposed a magistrate between the citizen and the
police. What is now the test of reason to make the search
reasonable? The test is the reason underlying and expressed by the
Fourth Amendment: the history and the experience which it
embodies and the safeguards afforded by it against the evils to which
it was a response." Therefore, a search warrant is still necessary for a
routine search of rooms other than which an arrest occurs, or the
search of closed desk or drawers, or other concealed places in the
room, absent recognized exceptions. The reasonableness of a search
incident to the arrest still depends on the facts, circumstances, and
total atmosphere of the case. Those facts and circumstances must be
viewed in the light of established Fourth Amendment principles, and
the only reasoned distinction is one between (1) a search of the

person arrested and the area within his reach, and (2) more extensive
searches.