Facts: In September 1965, three police officers knocked on Ted Chimel’s door with an arrest warrant for his burglary of a coin shop. Chimel’s wife answered the door and allowed them inside to wait until Chimel came home from work. 10-15 minutes later, he returned home and an officer showed him the arrest warrant and asked for his permission to “look around”, which Chimel refused. Although the officers did not have a search warrant, they conducted the search against Chimel’s will “on the basis of the lawful arrest”. They searched his entire house for approximately one hour, and even asked Chimel’s wife to open drawers and move their contents around. By the end of the search, the officers had seized many items they suspected were products of his coin shop burglary. These items (which Chimel argued were unconstitutionally seized based on the Fourth Amendment) were admitted into evidence
…show more content…
The majority, led by Justice Stewart, held that a search of the area “within [Chimel’s] immediate control” would have been reasonable to protect the officers, but the search of his entire home without a search warrant was constitutionally unjustifiable.
Dissenting Opinions: The dissent was led by Justice White, who was joined by Justice Black. The two stated that, although the police did not obtain a search warrant, they had probable cause to search Chimel’s house because he had “obliquely admitted, both to a neighbor and to the owner of the burglarized store, that he had committed the burglary”. Because these Justices were sure that a search warrant would have been granted under the circumstances, they believed that the search was reasonable under the
The majority, led by Justice Stewart, held that a search of the area “within [Chimel’s] immediate control” would have been reasonable to protect the officers, but the search of his entire home without a search warrant was constitutionally unjustifiable.
Dissenting Opinions: The dissent was led by Justice White, who was joined by Justice Black. The two stated that, although the police did not obtain a search warrant, they had probable cause to search Chimel’s house because he had “obliquely admitted, both to a neighbor and to the owner of the burglarized store, that he had committed the burglary”. Because these Justices were sure that a search warrant would have been granted under the circumstances, they believed that the search was reasonable under the