L
lilsammy415
Guest
What was the court's justification for that holding?
What did Chimel hold regarding searches?
What did Chimel hold regarding searches?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
There wasn't legally founded justifications for that holding. It was ruled unlawful, therefore making statements regarding prosecution of, inadmissible. However, it was assumed the officer stated the defendant was being detained for suspicion of illegal drug activity. The initial stop was for a minor traffic violation. Nothing gave justification for the search and continued detainment of this individual.
Secondly, Chimel ruled that the search may be of the immediate area of the aressted passenger, not any where else inside the vehicle or its components. A warrant would be required to search other areas of the vehicle.
Secondly, Chimel ruled that the search may be of the immediate area of the aressted passenger, not any where else inside the vehicle or its components. A warrant would be required to search other areas of the vehicle.
imported_rickinnocal
New member
The holding in Chimel was that "An arresting officer may search only the area "within the immediate control" of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. Any other search of the surrounding area requires a search warrant."
Richard
Richard
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
I found no reference to "Chimel." However, a concurring decision was written by Justice White, and a dissenting opinion was written by Justice Douglas.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
I found no reference to "Chimel." However, a concurring decision was written by Justice White, and a dissenting opinion was written by Justice Douglas.