NCJ Number
31801
Journal
Georgetown Law Review Volume: 64 Issue: 1 Dated: (OCTOBER 1975) Pages: 53-84
Date Published
1975
Length
32 pages
Annotation
THE DOCTRINE OF SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT BEACUSE IT IS ARBITRARY AND LACKS A SOUND RATIONALE.
Abstract
THE DOCTRINE OF SEARCH INCIDENT OT ARREST PROVIDES THAT, AS AN INCIDENT TO EVERY LAWFUL FULL CUSTODY ARREST, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE ARRESTEE AND AND THE AREA WITHIN HIS IMMEDIATE CONTROL. ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT HAS STATED THAT THE SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST EXCEPTION TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S GENERAL REQUIREMENT OF A SEARCH WARRANT HAS BEEN 'SETTLED FROM ITS FIRST ENUNCIATION,' THE DOCTRINE SHOULD BE REEXAMINED IN TERMS OF CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE. THE SUPREME COURT IN CHIMEL V. CALIFORNIA ATTEMPTED TO ENUNCIATE STANDARDS THAT WOULD LIMIT UNREASONABLY BROAD AREA SEARCHES. SINCE THE COURT'S 1969 DECISION IN CHIMEL LACKS A DEFENSIBLE RATIONAL BASIS. HOWEVER, LOWER COURTS HAVE APPLIED THE CHIMEL STANDARD INCONSISTENTLY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)