Procedural Posture of Chimel versus California - Book Report/Review Example

Case briefings Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) Decided in 1969 In this case, three-law enforcement officers arrived at the home of Santa Anna in California equipped with an arrest warrant but lacked a search and seizure warrant. They asked petitioner’s wife if they enter the house and she allowed them in as they waited for the arrival of the petitioner. The police office had an arrest warrant to arrest the petitioner for robbery of a coin ship. When the petitioner arrived at his home and entered his house, the police officers served him with the arrest warrant and asked for permission to search his house. The petitioner refused but the police officer carried to search his house on the ground of the lawful arrest. It is imperative to note that the police officers searched the petitioner’s house without a search and seizure warrant. The officers searched the entire house including a small workshop and the master bedroom where the petitioners wife was asked to open the drawers and to physically move the items of the drawer from side to side in order to permit them to view all the content of the drawer that would have come from robbery. After finishing their search, the three police officers seized some items especially coins and several tokens, models and a few other items. Procedural posture of the case During the petitioner’s trial on robbery charges, items seized from his home were presented over objection or opposition that they have been taken or seized unconstitutionally because the police officers lacked a search and seizure warrant. The petitioners conviction was affirmed by the appellate courts in California which stated that despite their acceptance of the petitioners contention that the arrest warrant was not valid, and that since the arresting police officers had received the arrest warrant in good faith. The court held that since in any case they had credible information to constitute a probable cause for the petitioner’s arrest, the arrest was lawful. Further, the court asserted that the search and seizure was lawful as incident to a valid arrest (Hubbert 32-4). From this summary, the appellate courts held that the police officers were justified in searching the petitioner’s house despite them lacking a valid search and seizure warrant on the basis that it has been event to a valid or suitable arrest. Main issues in this case The issue in this case was whether the search of the petitioners by the police officers without a search and seizure warrant was constitutional and if it can be justified as event to that arrest. Disposition/judgment The appellate court’s decision was reversed. Held Supposing that the arrest of the petitioner was valid, the search of the petitioner’s house without a valid search warrant is unconstitutional and cannot be justified as event to that arrest. A police officer arresting someone can search him or her to discover and acquire weapons and seize evidence to obstruct its destruction and may search the place within immediate control of the individual being arrested implying that the place from which the arrestee might destroy evidence. The search of the petitioner’s bedroom including drawers and other concealed or closed places needs a valid search warrant. While rationality of a search event to arrest relies upon circumstances and facts, the entire atmosphere of the case, the circumstances, and facts must be perceived in light of well-founded fourth amendment tenets, which allows the search of the arrested person and the place within his immediate reach and not extensive searches (Clancy 48). Majority The majority stated that the entire search of the house was unconstitutional and unreasonable. Further, the majority asserted that the searches event to arrest of the petitioner should be confined within immediate area of his control or reach. However, in this case, there is no credibility of searching any room. The police officers should have searched the area within the reach of the petitioner. Such searches may be conducted only with the permission and authority of a valid and reasonable search warrant. Dissent The dissent asserted that there is always a risk that the suspect will try to run and escape, and there is risk that the suspect may try hard to kill or destroy evidence significant to the trial. In addition, they also asserted that there are tricky situations and probable cause, and that the police officers might carry on with the search without a search warrant. According to the dissents, an arrest may generate emergency scenario to demand police officers to get a search warrant before starting the search. Additionally, it is not rational for police officers to leave the area of an arrest in order to get a search warrant when they possess probable cause, which allows them to search. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Decided in 1961 Cleveland Law enforcers arrived in the appellant home in search of information that a certain individual was hiding in the appellants home who was needed for questioning and interrogation in association with bombing, and that there were certain things being concealed in that residence. Mapp and he daughter lived in that home and when the police officers arrived, they knocked the door and demanded to enter but Miss Mapp upon conducting her lawyer; she declined to allow the police officers in her house without a valid search warrant. The police officers were permitted to conduct a surveillance of the resident. Three hours later, the officers again sought to enter Miss Mapp’s house but still Miss Mapp refused to let them in. The police officers coercively opened one of the doors and accessed the house. Miss Mapp insisted that the police officers to produce search warrant. One of the police officers produced a paper claiming to be a search warrant, which Miss Mapp grabbed and concealed it in her bosom. A struggle emerged in which the law enforcers took the paper and in turn, they handcuffed Miss Mapp on the basis that she has been aggressive in rejecting their official rescue of the search warrant. The police officers forcibly took Miss Mapp upstairs where they searched her concealed items, closet, and some suitcases. In addition, they also searched her personal papers and photo album. The police officers moved on to search the kitchen, children bedroom, and dining hall. In the course of the forceful search, the police officers managed to get the obscene materials they wanted (Rago 65). Main issue Whether the Ohio Supreme Court was mandated to use evidence obtained through forcible means without a valid search and seizure warrant Disposition or judgment The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was overturned Procedural posture of the case During the trial of the appellant, no search warrant was produced. The Ohio Supreme court held that it was reasonable that the conviction should be quashed or reversed. This is because the approaches or methods used by police officers to get the evidence were directed in a manner as to offend or insult a sense of justice but the court realized that the evidence had not been obtained from defendant’s person by application of offensive or brutal force against the defendant. In addition, the court asserted that even if the search were done in absence of legal authority or unreasonably by the police officers, it is not stopped from utilizing the unconstitutionally and unreasonably seized evidence at the trial (Lee 41-3). The fourteenth amendment does not prohibit the use of evidence gathered by unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore, in this case the court held that there was probable and reasonable jurisdiction to try the appellant. Held The Court held that the appellant was protected by the fourth amendment, which declares that every person has his or her right to be safe against unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it stated that the application of the seized evidence comprised a denial of constitutional freedom and rights of Miss Mapp. Therefore, the court could not use evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure. The federal law officers were challenged to adhere strictly to the law and that under no circumstance should law enforcers present evidence obtained unconstitutionally (Clancy 78-82). Majority The majority argued that the court should not use the evidence presented because it was obtained by forcible means and in absence of a search and seizure warrant from the attorney general or any known justice. They held that the fourth amendment of the U.S constitution places Federal officers and the courts in the application of their duties and powers under restraints and limitations to safeguard persons, houses, effects and papers against all irrational or unreasonable searches and seizures under the shadow of the policy or law (Rago 66). Dissent They argued that Miss Mapp was not cooperative since she refused to open the doors for the police officers to search for the obscene materials they wanted. Further, they stated that the court should the evidence gathered by the police officers as stated in the fourteenth amendment. Works Cited Clancy, Thomas. The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation. Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2008. Print. Hubbart, Philip. Making Sense of Search and Seizure Law: A Fourth Amendment Handbook. Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2008. Print. Lee, Cynthia. Searches and Seizures: The Fourth Amendment: Its Constitutional History and Contemporary Debate. New York: Prometheus Books, 2010. Print. Rago, John. Forensic Science and Law: Investigative Applications in Criminal, Civil and Family Justice. Washington, DC: CRC Press, 2005. Print. Read More