Chimel v. California - Significance, Setting The Standard, Warrantless Emergency Search, Impact, Further Readings
united petitioner ohio arrest
Petitioner
Ted Chimel
Respondent
State of California
Petitioner's Claim
That the warrantless search of Chimel's entire house, incident to arrest, was not justifiable under the Fourth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Keith C. Monroe
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Ronald M. George
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, Byron R. White (Abe Fortas retired)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 June 1969
Decision
Reversed the lower courts' rulings and held that searches incident to arrest are limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect in order to prevent the grabbing of a weapon or the destruction of evidence.
Related Cases
- Weeks v. Ohio, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
- Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 (1947).
- United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950).
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
- Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (1964).
- Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646 (1971).
- State v. Thomas, 318 N.C. 287 (1986).
User Comments