NCJ Number
52351
Date Published
1976
Length
0 pages
Annotation
THIS FILM FOCUSES ON THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF A POLICE SEARCH WHICH WAS AFFIRMED IN THE CHIMEL V. CALIFORNIA DECISION. EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON A RESIDENTIAL SEARCH AND PLAIN-VIEW OBSERVATION OF CONTRABAND OR EVIDENCE.
Abstract
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IN CHIMEL V. CALIFORNIA, PROMULGATED LIMITS ON THE SCOPE OF A SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST. THE FILM DEPICTS THE ROBBERY OF A STEREO AND APPLIANCE STORE AND THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE ARREST OF THE TWO SUSPECTS. THE POLICE PROCEED TO THE RESIDENCE OF THE FEMALE SUSPECT WITH A SEARCH WARRANT FOR GRAND THEFT. THE SCOPE OF THE WARRANT IS CONSIDERED. THE OFFICERS MAY SEARCH THE SUSPECT AND ANY AREA IN THE RESIDENCE UNDER HER IMMEDIATE CONTROL. IF THE SUSPECT VOLUNTARILY MOVES TO A NEW AREA, THE SCOPE OF THE SEARCH IS SIMULTANEOUSLY ENLARGED. THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SEARCH FOR THE SUSPECT'S MALE PARTNER, SINCE THERE IS NO OBVIOUS EVIDENCE THAT HE IS ON THE PREMISES. A SECOND APPROACH TO THE SAME ARREST SCENE IS DEPICTED. THIS TIME THE MALE PARTNER'S CAR IS OBSERVABLY PARKED NEXT TO THE FEMALE'S RESIDENCE. THE POLICE HEAR THE MALE SUSPECT'S VOICE DURING THE SEARCH AND ARREST OF THE FEMALE SUSPECT. SINCE THERE ARE SPECIFIC, ARTICULABLE FACTS LEADING TO THE SUSPICION THAT AN ADDITIONAL SUSPECT IS PRESENT, POLICE MAY CONTINUE THEIR SEARCH AFTER KNOCK AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS ARE FULFILLED. THE SEARCH THEN ENLARGES TO INCLUDE THE AREA IN THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL OF THE ADDITIONAL SUSPECT. ANY EVIDENCE OR CONTRABAND OBSERVED BY OFFICERS WHILE IN THAT AREA MAY BE SEIZED IF THE EVIDENCE IS PLAINLY OBSERVABLE AND IN OPEN CONTAINERS. THE POLICE MAY NOT OPEN CLOSED CONTAINERS THAT PRESUMABLY CONTAIN EVIDENCE OR CONTRABAND WITHOUT OBTAINING A FURTHER SEARCH WARRANT. (DAG)