Flashcards in Chapter 7-Search after arrest Deck (23):
Two major cases on searches after an arrest
United States v Robinson and Chimel v California
in Robinson court said?
body search is valid when full-custody arrest occurs
In Chimel, Court authorized
search of the area within a persons immediate control after an arrest.
Court has authorized officers to search the are of immediate control for two reasons.
1. to ensure the safety of the officer
2. to prevent the destruction of evidence.
This Court held that a warrantless search at the place of detention is valid even if a substantial period of time has elapsed between the arrest and the search.
United States v Edwards, 1974
This Court held that a limited protective sweep during an arrrest in a home is allowed if justified.
Maryland v Buie, 1990
This Court said that searching the personal effects of a person under lawful arrest is valid if it is part of the administrative procedure incident to the booking and jailing of the suspect.
Illinois v LaFayette, 1982
Leading cases in Searches after arrest are?
Chimel v California and United States v Robinson
Warrantless search and seizure inside a persons home is valid if probable cause and exigent circumstances are present. Mere evidence, may be searched, seized and admitted to court
Warden v Hayden, 1967
Witness followed Hayden home after committing robbery. Haydens wife consented to search of house. Hayden arrested, and the only man in the house. Officer heard running water from adjoining room and found shotgun and pistol in flush tank. Another officer looking for a man or the money found clothes fitting the suspect description by robber.
after an arrest, police may search the area within a persons immediate control
Chimel v California, 1969
Chimel suspect of robbing a coin shop. officers armed with arrest warrant, but not search warrant. wife let officers in, and immediately after, chimel showed up and was arrested. Officers searched the house and located the coins.
after making an arrest, the police may search the area within the persons immediate control for the purpose of ?
to search and remove weapons and to prevent the destruction of evidence.
Area of immediate control is
is a person's wingspan, where it might be possible to grab a weapon or destroy evidence.
warrantless search of a house after an arrest with a warrant, when the arrest does not take place in a house, is justified only in a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions
Vale v Louisiana, 1970
Vale was arrested outside his house after being under surveillance conducting a drug sale. Officers then went inside his house to search and found drugs without a warrant. No warrant, No exigent circumstances and without consent. Evidence not admissible
A body search is valid when a full custody arrest occurs.
United States v Robinson, 1973
Robinson was stopped on suspicion that he was driving a veh after his license has been revoked. Robinson arrested and search incident to arrest found drugs.
Robinson case, therefore, expands the scope of search incident to a valid arrest and does away with
Fear for personal safety, limitation
After a lawful arrest and detention, any search conducted at the place of detention, which would have been lawful at the time of arrest, may be conducted without warrant, even though a substantial period of time may have elapsed between the arrest and the search
United States v Edwards, 1974
Edwards arrested for attempting to break into a post office and was taken to jail. Investigation at crime scene revealed paint chips on window sill. nest morning, Edwards clothes were seized and held as evidence. Examination of clothes revealed paint chip matching those taken from the window.
searching the personal effects of a person under lawful arrest is valid if it is part of administrative procedure incident to the booking and jailing of suspect
Illinois v LaFayett, 1982
Lafayette arrested for disturbing the peace. taken to a bookin room and officer removed the contents of a shoulder bag he was carrying. officer found drugs.
Court approved of inventory searches for the following reasons;
1.protection of a suspects property
2. deterrence of false claims of theft against police
4. identification of suspect.
limited protective sweep during arrest in a home is allowed if justified.
Maryland v Buie,1990
executing arrest warrants at Buie home, who was hiding in a basement. after Buie arrest, officer went to the basement to see if anyone else was there and found clothes used in robbery in plain view
protective sweep: limited in scope, following limitations must be observed
1. must be articulate facts which, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be sweep harbors an individual posing a danger.
2. such protective sweep is not a full search of the premises, but may extend only to a cursory inspection of spacs where a person may be found.
3. sweep last no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event no longer that it takes to complete the arrest and depart
court itself distinguished Chimel from Buie as follows:
1. Chimel was concerned with a full-blown, top to bottom search of an entire house for evidence of crime for which the arrest was made, not the more limited intrusion contemplated by a protective sweep
2. Justification for the search incident to arrest in Chimel was the threat posed by arrestee, not the safety threat posed by the house or unseen third party.
Officers may make a warrantless arrest of a person, even for a misd crime, if allowed by 4th Amend, but prohibited by state law.
Virginia v Moore, 2008
moore stopped on traffic for driving on suspended license. Moore was arrested. under state law, officers should have issued Moore a summons instead because state law only authorized arrest when suspect fail to stop the violation or they ignore the summons. Subsequent to the arrest, the search discovered 16 grams cocaine and cash.