Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States, individuals have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures as a personal injury lawyer can explain. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant be upon probable cause supported with “an oath or affirmation” that describes the place, person, and things to be searched with particularity. Id. Despite some guidance to search and seizures, the Amendment does not explicitly cover warrantless searches when an individual is arrested. These searches are known as “searches incident to arrests.” A search incident to a lawful arrest is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 (1973). Thus, an officer does not need probable cause for the search but rather only needs probable cause for the arrest to be able to search the arrestee.
Chimel v. California outlines when an officer may conduct a search incident to arrest. Three officers arrived at the defendant’s home with an arrest warrant for the burglary of a coin shop. Chimel v. Cal., 395 U.S. 752, 753 (1969). The officers handed the defendant the warrant and asked permission to look around his home, which the defendant declined. Id. Nonetheless, the officers searched without a warrant “based on the lawful arrest.” Id. at 754. The officers then searched the entire three-bedroom home and seized numerous items. Id. During the search, the officers ordered the defendant’s wife to open drawers and physically move the drawers’ contents so they could see any items that resulted from the burglary. Id.
The issue presented to the Court was whether searching the entire house as incidental to the arrest was constitutionally justified. Id. at 755. For the general concept of a search incident to arrest, the Court stated that it is reasonable for an officer to search the arrestee during an arrest to remove weapons that the arrestee could use to resist arrest or escape from custody. Id. at 763. This includes an area where an arrestee may be able to reach a weapon or evidentiary items, referring to an area “within his immediate control.” Id. However, an officer may not search “any other room than that in which an arrest occurs,” meaning that the officer would need a search warrant to expand the scope of the search outside the arrestee’s immediate control. Id. Therefore, it is unconstitutional for a search to go beyond the area where the arrest occurred without a warrant. Id. at 768.
Chimel sets forth the general requirements of a search incident to arrest. First, the officer needs probable cause for the arrest. Following, the search must be substantially contemporaneous with that arrest. If the search is not contemporary, probable cause has dissipated. Lastly, the scope of the search must not exceed the “grabble area” in which the defendant can reach for weapons or evidence. The test derived from Chimel is whether the arrestee’s person or area is within immediate control to gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.
A search incident to arrest allows an officer to search an arrestee for weapons or destructible evidence, thereby securing their safety while anticipating any action by the defendant to escape, resist, and destroy evidence. However, this search can only be within the defendant’s immediate control. If you have questions about this process, you should contact a lawyer near you. The scope of the arrest must not exceed the grabble area of the defendant. An officer must retrieve a separate search warrant to go beyond this scope.
Thanks to Eglet Adams for their insight on searches incident to arrests.