Search Incident to a Valid Arrest

Question 1

Schmerber v. California (S. Ct. 1966) (DUI suspect had a blood sample taken. Analysis was used against him.)

Answer 1

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination “protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature, and that the withdrawal of blood and use of . . . analysis . . . did not involve compulsion.”

Question 2

Chimel v. California (S. Ct. 1969) (The defendant, Chimel (the “defendant”), was arrested inside his home and police asked him for consent to search the home. The defendant refused the request. The police proceeded nonetheless, incident to the lawful arrest and searched in different rooms. The police also had the defendant’s wife open various dresser drawers and remove their contents.)

Answer 2

Incident to a lawful arrest, a search of any area beyond the arrestee’s immediate control, is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (”Constitution”), unless there is a clear danger that evidence may be destroyed or concealed or there is an imminent threat of harm to the arresting officers.

Question 3

U.S. v. Robinson (S. Ct. 1973) (The defendant, Robinson (the “defendant”), was pulled over for driving with a revoked license. He was then arrested and the police officer proceeded to do a thorough search of the defendant’s person whereby the officer found a closed cigarette pack which contained heroin.)

Answer 3

Incident to a lawful arrest, even for a driving violation, a thorough search (frisk) of an arrestee’s person for weapons and also to prevent the concealment or destruction of incriminating evidence is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment

Question 4

U.S. v. Chadwick (S. Ct. 1977) (One and a half hours after arresting the Respondents, Chadwick, Machado, and Leary (Respondents), federal narcotics agents opened a footlocker confiscated during the arrest. The agents had not obtained a warrant to open the footlocker.)

Answer 4

Once property cannot be accessed by an arrestee, it cannot be searched without a warrant.

Question 5

Arizona v. Gant (S. Ct. 2009) (Rodney Gant was apprehended by Arizona state police on an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license. After the officers handcuffed Gant and placed him in their squad car, they went on to search his vehicle, discovering a handgun and a plastic bag of cocaine. )

Answer 5

Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.

Question 6

Riley v. California (S. Ct. 2014) (can you search a cell phone incident to arrest without a warrant?)

Answer 6

The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

Question 7

To justify an intrusion into a suspects body there must be:

Answer 7

(1) a clear indication that evidence will be found, (2) exigent circumstances, (3) the test administered is conducted in a reasonable manner (e.g., done by a trained professional), (4) without any significant risk, trauma, or pain, and (5) conducted in a reasonable manner (in accordance with acceptable medical procedure).

Question 8

Will exigent circumstances (necessary to conduct a blood test) for a DUI refusal always be presumed?

Answer 8

No. The natural dissipation of alcohol does not establish a per se exigency on its own to justify a warrantless blood draw for a suspect validly arrested for DUI. A case by case analysis is required; police officers should pursue a warrant where it is reasonable to do so.