Simone Lawson
Search incident to arrest is an American legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person and the area within the arrestee's immediate control. This is an exception to the usual practice of obtaining a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment states that a warrant is generally required for a search and seizure to be reasonable, although there are limited exceptions to the warrant requirement. The legality of searches incident to arrest has been tested in several court cases, including Riley v. California, Birchfield v. North Dakota, and United States v. Robinson. These cases have addressed the scope of warrantless searches, the privacy interests of individuals, and the need for legitimate governmental interests. The courts have generally upheld the principle of search incident to arrest, but with some exceptions and limitations.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Search incident to a lawful arrest | An American legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control |
| Search incident to arrest exception | An exception to the usual practice of obtaining a search warrant pursuant to the Fourth Amendment |
| Search incident to arrest exception requirements | 1. Was the searched item within the arrestee’s immediate control when they were arrested? 2. Did events occurring after the arrest but before the search make the search unreasonable? |
| Search incident to arrest exception limitations | Searches must be limited to the arrestee's person or areas in the arrestee's immediate control at the time of arrest |
| Search incident to arrest exception disputes | The scope of the search, i.e. whether the search was strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances that rendered its justification permissible |
| Search incident to arrest and cell phones | The police must get a warrant to search a cell phone incident to an arrest unless an exigent circumstance is present |
| Search incident to arrest and drunk driving | A warrantless breath test is permissible, but a warrantless blood test is not |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Search incident to arrest exception
Search incident to a lawful arrest, also known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule, is an American legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person and the area within the arrestee's immediate control. This is done in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, or the preservation of evidence.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and generally requires a warrant for searches. However, the search incident to arrest exception permits police to conduct a warrantless search of an arrestee and their immediate surroundings. This exception has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held in Harris v. United States (1947) that a law enforcement officer was permitted to perform a warrantless search during or immediately after a lawful arrest of the arrestee and their premises.
The Court has also upheld the search incident to arrest exception in cases involving traffic offenses and custodial arrests. In United States v. Robinson (1973), the Court held that a full search of the person following a lawful custodial arrest was not only an exception to the warrant requirement but also a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, in Gustafson v. Florida (1973), the Court found that a search of a motorist's person following a custodial arrest for a citable offense was permissible, even though the officer did not have to take the suspect into custody.
The search incident to arrest exception has also been applied to searches of automobiles following an arrest. In Arizona v. Gant (2009), the Court ruled that officers may search a vehicle after an arrest if the arrestee could have accessed the car at the time of the search, as this could pose a danger to those on the scene.
However, it is important to note that the Court has placed some limitations on the scope of warrantless searches under the search incident to arrest exception. In Riley, the Court held that police must obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone incident to an arrest due to the substantial privacy interests at stake when digital data is involved. Additionally, in Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Court examined the reasonableness of compulsory breath and blood tests to determine blood alcohol concentration following a drunk driving arrest, balancing individual privacy interests against legitimate state interests.
The Constitution: Branches as Co-Equal?
You may want to see also
Searches of digital data
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permits searches of the person of an arrestee as an incident to the arrest. However, the scope of the search has been a subject of dispute, with the general rule stating that the scope of a warrantless search must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances that rendered its justification permissible.
The issue of searching digital data, such as mobile phones, during a search incident to arrest has been a point of contention. Courts have struggled to apply traditional doctrines to modern-day technology, as mobile phones are comparable to closed containers, such as wallets or purses, found on an arrestee's person. However, unlike these containers, mobile phones, being computers, do not store physical objects that are visible once the device is opened. They contain vast quantities of personal data, and their storage capacity is not limited by their physical size.
In Riley v. California, the Court declined to extend the holding of United States v. Robinson to the search of digital data in a mobile phone found on an arrestee. The Court argued that other less intrusive means existed to secure the data, such as turning the phone off or placing it in a bag that isolates it from radio waves. The Court concluded that, due to the substantial privacy interests at stake and the availability of less intrusive alternatives, a warrant is required to search a mobile phone incident to an arrest.
This ruling set a precedent, and courts have since invalidated warrantless searches of mobile phones seized during an arrest. However, there is still a divide among courts, with some concluding that law enforcement may retrieve information from mobile phones without a warrant during a search incident to a lawful arrest. The Supreme Court's review of this issue is anticipated to provide further clarity and guidance.
The President's Inner Circle: Cabinet Membership Explained
You may want to see also
Searches of the person
The Fourth Amendment rules regarding searches and seizures do not apply to searches that are related to an arrest. As long as the arrest is valid, the police can search the person under arrest for weapons and evidence without a warrant or consent from the suspect. This is known as a search incident to arrest. The search must be limited to the body of the person under arrest and the area within their control. For example, an arresting officer can often search not only a suspect's clothes but also their wallet or purse.
In the case of Chimel v. California (1969), Officer Montoya arrested Sarah for driving under the influence of illegal drugs. Before taking Sarah to jail, Montoya took her key and entered her apartment, where he found several computers with stolen serial numbers. Montoya seized the computers as evidence and added possession of stolen property to the charges against Sarah.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the police usually need a warrant to search the cell phone of someone they arrest, as there is a greater expectation of privacy in the digital contents of a cell phone than in the tangible contents of an ordinary container. In Riley v. California, the Court declined to extend this ruling to the search of digital data contained in a cell phone found on an arrestee. The Court distinguished between cell phones, which contain vast quantities of personal data, and the limited physical search at issue in United States v. Robinson. The Court also discounted the government's argument that cell phone data could be destroyed remotely or become encrypted over time, noting that other means exist to secure the data, such as turning the phone off or placing it in a bag that isolates it from radio waves.
In Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Court examined whether compulsory breath and blood tests to determine the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of a driver arrested for suspected drunk driving were unreasonable under the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Court relied on a general balancing approach, weighing the individual privacy interests against any legitimate state interests. It viewed the privacy intrusions posed by breath tests as "almost negligible" and concluded that a warrantless breath test following a drunk-driving arrest is permissible under the Fourth Amendment, while a warrantless blood test cannot be justified by the search incident to arrest doctrine.
The Justices have long disagreed about the scope of the search incident to arrest as it extends beyond the person to the area in which the person is arrested, such as their premises or vehicle. In Harris v. United States, the Court approved a search of a four-room apartment pursuant to an arrest under warrant for one crime, where the search turned up evidence of another crime. However, in Trupiano v. United States, the Court reversed a conviction because the officers had conducted a raid on a distillery and arrested a man found on the premises without obtaining a search warrant.
Muslim Politicians: Constitution Oath, What's the Truth?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Searches of the area within the arrestee's immediate control
Searches incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the Chimel rule, is an American legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person and the area within the arrestee's immediate control. This is done in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, or the preservation of evidence.
In Chimel v. California, the Court asserted a narrower view, emphasizing the primacy of warrants and setting a standard by which the scope of searches pursuant to arrest could be determined. The Court held that "when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use to resist arrest or effect an escape." The Court also noted that it is reasonable for the officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person to prevent its concealment or destruction.
The area into which an arrestee might reach to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must also be searched. This includes areas within the arrestee's immediate control, such as a gun on a table or in a drawer in front of the arrested person, which can be as dangerous as a concealed weapon. However, there is no comparable justification for routinely searching rooms other than the one in which the arrest occurred or searching through all closed or concealed areas in that room.
In United States v. Rabinowitz, the Court referred to searches of the area within the arrestee's "immediate control" but did not provide a clear standard for determining this area, allowing extensive searches. In contrast, the Court in Riley v. California held that police generally may not search digital information on an arrestee's cell phone without a warrant, as there are more substantial privacy interests at stake and less intrusive alternatives available.
The Court has also addressed searches following an arrest involving automobiles. In New York v. Belton, the Court held that police could search the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle, including containers, following the valid arrest of the occupant. However, in Arizona v. Gant, the Court disavowed this understanding, stating that a vehicle search incident to every recent occupant's arrest would not be authorized.
Congress Powers: Understanding the Limits and Boundaries
You may want to see also
Searches of vehicles
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Court has held that a search incident to an arrest is permissible, even if the arrest itself is illegal, as long as it is not unconstitutional.
The Court has long been in disagreement about the scope of the search incident to arrest as it extends beyond the person to the area in which the person is arrested—most commonly either their premises or their vehicle. In New York v. Belton, the Court held that police officers who had made a valid arrest of the occupant of a vehicle could make a contemporaneous search of the entire passenger compartment of the automobile, including containers found therein. This was understood to allow a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant, even if the arrestee could not access the vehicle at the time of the search.
However, in Arizona v. Gant, the Court disavowed this understanding and held that "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 that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest." This means that the police must have probable cause to search a vehicle, and they may not make random stops of vehicles on the roads. Instead, they must base stops of individual vehicles on probable cause or some "articulable and reasonable suspicion" of a traffic or safety violation or other criminal activity.
In addition, the Court has held that a warrantless search of a cell phone incident to an arrest is not permissible due to the substantial privacy interests at stake when digital data is involved. In such cases, the police must obtain a warrant before conducting the search.
Framing the Constitution: Bible's Influence
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Search incident to arrest, also known as the Chimel rule, is an American legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person and the area within the arrestee's immediate control.
There are two general requirements for a valid search incident to arrest. Firstly, the search must be limited to the arrestee's person or areas in their immediate control at the time of the arrest. Secondly, events occurring after the arrest but before the search must not make the search unreasonable.
Searches incident to arrest are an exception to the usual practice of obtaining a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures, so a search incident to arrest must be reasonable to be constitutional.
A reasonable search incident to arrest is limited to the person arrested and the immediate area within which they might gain possession of a weapon, or might destroy or hide evidence. The degree of intrusion on an individual's privacy must be weighed against the need for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.
