In the case Chimel versus California police officers were given an arrest warrant which gave them permission to apprehend a suspected criminal. The officers were allowed to come inside and wait for the person and when he got home they made the arrest. Immediately after the arrest, the police decided to search the property where the arrest was made even though they were not given permission by the suspect and the warrant they had was only for an arrest. As a result of the search, the police did find evidence that related to the crime that they were investigating however, since the arrest warrant did not include a search the validity of the evidence was in question. The law states that, arresting police officers can search the person that is under arrest and the immediate area around where the arrest occurred with only an arrest warrant. The problem in this situation is that, searching the entire home for evidence is not included in the description of the law which only allows for a search of the direct area. Anything outside of this area requires officers to obtain an additional warrant known as a search warrant, which describes the area that is to be searched. This is necessary because, the constitution says that people and there things are supposed to be given a reasonable amount of privacy. This can help a suspect because, it gives them time to cover up their actions but, if police get a proper warrant then they will be able to gather the evidence that is needed. Specifically, if an officer wants to search the house they should define in the warrant the rooms which they suspect evidence to be in and any locked areas or drawers. An arrest warrant is not valid for a complete search (Justia).
Works Cited
Justia, Supreme Court. "Chimel V. California 395 U.S. 752 (1969)". Justia Law. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2016.
