2. facts of the case – On September 13, 1965 police officers arrived to Ted Chimel residence in California with an arrest warrant for ted chimel. The arrest warrant issued indicates Ted Chimel is a suspect for burglary of stealing coins from a store. At the time the police officers arrived at the house of chimels he wasn’t home. Chimels wife was home at the time and allowed the officers to come in and search which gave them consent. Moments after chimel arrival to his house he was immediately arrested. Chimel told the officers he denied the officers to search his house without a search warrant. The officer proceeds to search the house checking everywhere from bedrooms all the way to the attic.
3.Issues- Chimel v. California, 395. U.S. 752 …show more content…
reasoning- when an arrest warrant is issued the only place you can search is scope of area the person is legally. Anything obtained beyond that scope will not be permissible. Ted chimel did not give the officer consent to search and told them you need an arrest warrant. the police officer thought that if making this arrest in the house it had enough probable cause to not need a search warrant. the supreme court found that you need a search warrant to go up to the attic or bedrooms not an arrest warrant.
6. separate opinions- the supreme court judge said every state law enforcement runs into troubles and now with having things straight forward the 4th amendment of the united states constitution protects people from unreasonable search and seizures. You can go in with an arrest warrant to search the attic. When you have an arrest warrant your arresting the person and securing anything around him that can be evidence from being tempered and use of force toward law enforcement.
7.analysis- The arresting officers were allowed with permission of Ted Chimel wife and started searching until Ted Chimal arrival at that moment they arrested. Ted chimel said you can search my house without a warrant. Chimel lost in trail but appealed and won in the supreme court due to having his 4th amendment violated by unreasonable search and seizures. If though the arresting officer found stolen coins they did not follow proper procedure and Chimal
3.Issues- Chimel v. California, 395. U.S. 752 …show more content…
reasoning- when an arrest warrant is issued the only place you can search is scope of area the person is legally. Anything obtained beyond that scope will not be permissible. Ted chimel did not give the officer consent to search and told them you need an arrest warrant. the police officer thought that if making this arrest in the house it had enough probable cause to not need a search warrant. the supreme court found that you need a search warrant to go up to the attic or bedrooms not an arrest warrant.
6. separate opinions- the supreme court judge said every state law enforcement runs into troubles and now with having things straight forward the 4th amendment of the united states constitution protects people from unreasonable search and seizures. You can go in with an arrest warrant to search the attic. When you have an arrest warrant your arresting the person and securing anything around him that can be evidence from being tempered and use of force toward law enforcement.
7.analysis- The arresting officers were allowed with permission of Ted Chimel wife and started searching until Ted Chimal arrival at that moment they arrested. Ted chimel said you can search my house without a warrant. Chimel lost in trail but appealed and won in the supreme court due to having his 4th amendment violated by unreasonable search and seizures. If though the arresting officer found stolen coins they did not follow proper procedure and Chimal