DO POLICE ALWAYS NEED A SEARCH WARRANT

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Today were going to be looking at search incident to arrest.
This is the Chimol versus. California. In nineteen sixty seven
case chime Wi Chimel. He was suspected of having robbed
the coin shop. The police, who had an arrest warrant
but not a search warrant, went to the suspect's home.
Chamal was not there, but his wife admitted the police.
Upon Chamil's rival at his home, the police took him

(00:21):
into custody and the police asked for consent to search
the premises. Consent was denied, but the police conducted they
search anyway. They search of the entire house disclosed coins
that had been stolen from the coin shop. The coins
were introduced a trial over the defendant's objection. Kamal was
convicted of robbery. The court decided that after making a
legal arrest, the police may search the area within the

(00:43):
suspects immediate control to ensure that the suspect does not
have access to a weapon or evidentiary items. This case
establishes the scoop of a search incident to an arrest
is what it's called in an individual's home. The Supreme
Court went on to say that the area under and arrest,
he's immediate control that area into which he might reach
an arm span. The court presumed that the suspect was

(01:05):
going to be removed immediately from the premises. In those
instances where it is necessary to move the defendant about
the premises, another arm span search might be authorized. If
a semi clad suspect request to clothe himself, the officers
could subject the area where he intends to see clothing
to another search incident to arrest. In fact, if the
suspect is transferred to another officer, that officer may perform

(01:27):
another search of the suspect's person before placing him or
or in the vehicle. So even though the suspect was
previously searched by an officer at another location, it is
a good rule of thumb, however, not to use the
movement of the suspect about the house to justify further searches.
For safety's sake, the suspect should be removed from the
premises as soon as possible. We mentioned the arms reach,

(01:49):
and that concepts promulgated in Chammel as well, was elaborated
upon in dealing with the high mobility and compactness of
an automobile. The most straightforward way of applying chamel to
automobile searches is directly is that everywhere within an automobiles
within an arm's reach, except the trunk. The Supreme Court
has determined that when a suspect is arrested in a vehicle,
the immediate area is defined that the entire passenger compartment

(02:10):
of the vehicle, including closed but not locked containers. In
nineteen eighty two, the Supreme Court did address the propriety
of the police searching the trunk of a car whose
driver have been lawfully arrested. The Court held a probable
cause to stop and search a vehicle justifies the search
of every part of the vehicle and its contents, including
containers in which the contraband sought might be secreted. In

(02:32):
many instances, the search of the vehicle as of the
person is focused not only on particular evidence, but rather
on any evidence that might be uncovered when searches are
performed on packages or luggage in the trunk. Individual probable
cause must be satisfied. In other words, the police must
be looking for something in particular when searching the trunk,
and the thing they seek must be based on probable clause,

(02:52):
although I warrant or exigence circumstances were not required