Go to next caseChimel concerns the right of the police to search in the vicinity of an arrest. It involved a man who had been burglarizing a specific area for quite some time. The police knew this and swore out a warrant for his arrest. Upon arresting him, they searched his apartment and discovered evidence that implicated him in the crimes. The search, however was done without a warrant. The police argued that they had merely followed the law which allowed them to search within the vicinity of an arrest in order to prevent escape, the destruction of evidence, or the acquisition of a weapon. The Court upheld the search, arguing "the area in which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee's person and the area 'within his immediate control.'"
Return to the list of cases
Return to home page