Search Incident to Arrest Flashcards
Grab Area
Chimel v. California—Grab Area
In a 7-2 decision, the Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and held that the search of Chimel’s home was unconstitutional. Justice Potter Stewart delivered the majority opinion, stating that a search incident to a lawful arrest is justified in order to prevent the arrestee from accessing weapons or destroying evidence. However, the Court emphasized that such a search must be limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control. In Chimel’s case, the officers’ search of his entire house went far beyond this limitation and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment.
Scope of Grab Area
There is ample justification for the search of the arrestee’s person and the area within their immediate control; the area from which they might be able to gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence
The search of any room other than that in which the arrest occurs or areas that are closed or concealed in the room itself are not permissible areas of search
The officers may solely search grab-area of the arrestee and this extends to the room or immediate area in which the arrest occurs
Probable cause is not necessary for the search, the grab-area is a per se rule
US v. Robinson—Search incident v. Frisks
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling. Justice William Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion, holding that a full search of a person’s body and the seizure of items from their pockets are permissible under the Fourth Amendment when the person is subjected to a lawful custodial arrest. The Court reasoned that a search incident to arrest is justified to prevent the arrestee from accessing weapons or destructible evidence, and to ensure officer safety. The Court also emphasized that the search incident to arrest does not depend on the nature of the offense for which the person is arrested.
The need to disarm the suspect
The need to preserve evidence on their person for trial
New York v Belton & Belton Rule
Court held that the passenger compartment of an automobile constituted the grab are of the car, and therefore officers arresting someone in the car were permitted to search the car incident to the arrest, and also to open any containers that are found in the passenger compartment; Application of Chimel grab area rule to the context of the grab area in a car; effectively all compartments/containers of a car; permissible after a lawful arrest—contemporaneous search of the compartments; automatic right to search without need for additional cause beyond the legally permissible arrest; this was permissible even if the arrestee didn’t have the ability to reach into the car for evidence or weapons at the time of the search
Arizona v. Gant—Automobile Searches
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, affirmed the Arizona Court of Appeals’ ruling. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the majority opinion, holding that a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest is permissible under the Fourth Amendment only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, or it is reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. In Gant’s case, the Court found that neither condition was met, as Gant was secured in a patrol car and the officers had no reason to believe that his vehicle contained evidence related to his suspended license.
Riley v. California—Search of Phones
When examining a new issue pertaining to the 4th that holds no foundation in historical or precedential guidance, the court must make determinations by balancing the individual privacy interests and the government’s interest (officer safety & destruction of evidence)
The privacy interest of an individual’s personal data on a cell phone outweighs the government’s interests and therefore the search of a persons cell phone incident to arrest is not permissible under the 4th amendment without a warrant
Limitations on Arrest-Power Rule
Birchfield v. North Dakota—Breathalyzers & Blood Tests
United States v. Ross & Michigan v. Long
The 4th amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drink driving the impact on privacy is light and the need for testing is great
The 4th amendment doesn’t permit blood tests without a warrant, these tests are more intrusive and their reasonableness must be judge in the light of the availability of the less invasive alternative
Reasonable balancing test: without a warrant a search is presumptive unconstitutional, exceptions are established from the balancing of the individual privacy interest and the government interests
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista—Minor Offenses - Is that kid unbuckled? Ma’am you’re coming with me.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ rulings and held that a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor offense punishable only by a fine does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Justice David Souter delivered the majority opinion, stating that the Fourth Amendment does not forbid warrantless arrests for minor criminal offenses, even if they are punishable only by a fine. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment’s general standard of reasonableness does not require a categorical rule prohibiting such arrests.
