Mini List for week 3+ reading - Search Incident to Arrest...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Search Incident to Arrest: The arrest power rule Spatial Limitations *Chimel v. California (1969) – Officers had a search warrant to arrest a suspected coin shop burglar. The officers arrested him at his home, and then searched the home without a warrant for any evidence (and without his permission). The evidence gathered outside the reasonable proximity of the suspect was considered unreasonable and unconstitutionally searched. US v. Lucas (1990) – Police had a warrant to arrest Lucas. Police was at the door when they seen him, and rushed to arrested him as Lucas was reaching for a kitchen drawer. After they handcuffed him, they took a look in the kitchen draw and found a handgun. Courts found that this was a valid warrantless search incident to Lucas’ arrest. US v. Blue (1996) – search between a mattress and a box spring could not be justified under the arrest power rule because suspects were on the floor, handcuffed with their hands behind their backs. US v. Neely (2003) – Officers couldn’t seize the clothing of a suspect who was brought to the hospital and was in surgery. There was no indication that he could have attempted to destroy the clothing at the time of the seizure. US v. Concurrence (2006) – Defendant was arrested while on his bicycle. Officers searched the handle bars, and found drugs. They were able to keep it as evidence because it was easily accessible to the defendant at the time of the arrest. (note though, that not all area of the bicycle could be searched). Timing of Grab Area Determination Davis v. Robbs (1986) – court upheld that the seizure of a rifle that had been in close proximity to the arrestee at the time of the arrest. Was okay. Dissent started that the defendant was in the back of a squad car, in a handcuffs. US v. Abdul-Saboor (1996) – Courts agreed w/ Davis . Grab area should be determined as of the time of arrest , not the time of the search. So searches in an area after the arrestee had been taken out of the room was permissible. Arrest Power can be invoked for any custodial arrest and can cover post-arrest movements Washington v. Chrisman (1982) – Officer arrested a suspect who looked underage and was carrying liquor. He arrested him and accompanied him to his dorm to get his ID. That’s when he saw contrabands, and was able to make an arrest because of that. He was able to enter the dorm because Officers has the right to be at elbow distance of the arrestee at all times (including their homes). Arrest Leading to Exigent Circumstances Vale v. Louisiana (1970) – Officers believed Vale had engaged in a drug transaction outside his home. They arrested him at the front steps, and found narcotics in the back bedroom. The mom and brother of his came home three minutes later. They failed to prove any exigent circumstances to search the home. Also, making a street arrest did not automatically make it a exigent circumstance....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/18/2011 for the course CRIM. PRO 125 taught by Professor Sobel during the Spring '11 term at California Western School of Law.

Page1 / 12

Mini List for week 3+ reading - Search Incident to Arrest...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online