SILA Flashcards
General rule
Chimel rule
In general, an officer who makes a lawful custodial arrest may conduct a warrantless search of the arrestees person and the area w/in the arrestee’s immediate control” (Chimel v. CA) (grabbing area)
House part of rule
Furthermore, as a precautionary matter, when arresting a person in a house the police may also search for persons hidden in closets and other spaces that are immediately adjoining the place of arrest” (Maryland v. Buie) )*large enough to hold a threatening individual
MERE FACT ARRESTING =
AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO CONDUCT WARRANTLESS SEARCH
*creates exigency of its own
US v. Robinson
Taken into custody for driving w/out license √lawful arrest
?What is scope of grabbing area? (←don’t need p/c that will find algo in area)
i. Case-by-case:
1. Age
2. Height, span
3. Was arrestee handcuffed?
arrest & in an automobile—BELTON
A police officer may contemporaneaously to the arrest of an auto occupant, search the arrestee and entire passenger compartment of vehicle and any container within compartment, open or close
Thorton v. US (2004)
• Extended Belton—but to “recent occupant”
Rationale behind SILA
1) Safety of officer (or person)
2) Prevent destruction of evidence
3) Prevent escape of suspect
but. ..what is scope….apply cases…
quick chimel rule
set forth parameters for automatic search incident to lawful arrest of
1) person &
2) immediate grabbing area
* safety rationale, not ok to look for evidence
US v. Robinson—where we were until June of 2014
anything on person at time of arrest is searchable
-generalized broad rule
-containers on person are searchable
(*crumpled cigarette pack, heroin; not a safety issue)
Riley v. CA
(search digital info on cellphone)
(technology, chimel to new level)
√stopped, expired tags
√lawfully arrested -handguns
√cellphone-photos-repeat calls “my house”
info phone—leads search warrant
fruit of poisonous tree
reasonableness standard: search potentially allowable but with warrant
(roberts) -nada to do w/rational of SILA
“cell phones…place vast quantities of personal info literally in the hands of individuals. A search of information on a cell phone bears little resemblance to the brief physical search in Robinson”
Held: declined to extend Robinson to searches of cell phone data & held=Officers must generally secure a warrant before conducting such a search.
fruit of poisonous tree
evidence obtained unlawfully
info shouldn’t be used
AZ v. Gant (2009)
rule today for search car, pursuant to lawful arrest
• Arrestee was handcuffed, locked in patrol car
• “police may search a vehicle, incident to a recent occupant’s arrest, only if
1)the arrestee is within reaching distant of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or
2) if it is objectively reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence OF THE CRIME ARRESTED FOR.”
• Alito dissent:
o ← what does reas to believe mean? Less than p/c?
o ←why is rule limited to evidence of offense to arrest, if believe a diff crime why should rule be difference.
Thorton v. US (2004)
Extended Belton—but “recent occupant”-spacial or temporal
• Rational doesn’t apply if handcuffed in squad car
• Reduced expectation of privacy in a car once you are arrested.
