Premium Essay

Case Study: Chimel V. California

Submitted By
Words 359
Pages 2
Chimel vs. California Supreme Court of the United States 395 U.S. 752
1969

Issue: If a person who is permitted by law arrested with a warrant, an unauthorized search of a person’s house against its fourth amendment?
Facts: Police officers came to defendant Chimels home with an arrest warrant for an apparent robbery. Police officers enter the home with the permission of Chimels wife while they waited for defendant to get home. When the defendant got home they arrested Chimel. During the arrest the police officers asked permission from Chimel to look around the house and Chimel denied the request. The search went on anyway as officers searched the entire house. They went through everything in his home. They asked the wife to remove subjects

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Businesesea a S Ddf Sdf Dsf a Df S

...Supreme Court of the United States David Leon RILEY, Petitioner v. CALIFORNIA. United States, Petitioner v. Brima Wurie. Nos. 13–132, 13–212. Argued April 29, 2014. Decided June 25, 2014. Background: In two cases consolidated for appeal, first defendant was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court, San Diego County, Laura W. Halgren, J., of various crimes related to drive-by shooting, and he appealed based on his challenge to evidence found during police officers' warrantless search of data stored on his cell phone. The California Court of Appeal, 2013 WL 475242,[->0] affirmed. Second defendant was charged with drug- and weapon-related crimes, and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Stearns, J., 612 F.Supp.2d 104,[->1] denied his motion to suppress evidence found during warrantless search of data stored on his cell phone, and defendant appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Stahl, Circuit Judge, 728 F.3d 1,[->2] reversed. Certiorari was granted. Holdings: The Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts[->3], held that: (1) interest in protecting officers' safety did not justify dispensing with warrant requirement for searches of cell phone data, and (2) interest in preventing destruction of evidence did not justify dispensing with warrant requirement for searches of cell phone data. Judgment of California Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, and judgment of First Circuit affirmed. Justice Alito...

Words: 24946 - Pages: 100

Premium Essay

Crj 320 Wk 3 Quiz 3 Chapter 4 and 5

...com/product/crj-320-wk-3-quiz-3-chapter-4-and-5/ Contact us at: SUPPORT@ACTIVITYMODE.COM CRJ 320 WK 3 QUIZ 3 CHAPTER 4 AND 5 CRJ 320 WK 3 Quiz 3 Chapter 4,5 MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. In which 1984 case did the Supreme Court define a search as “a governmental infringement of a legitimate expectation of privacy?” a. United States v. Ross c. Mapp v. Ohio b. United States v. Jacobsen d. Terry v. Ohio 2. A lane search, or partitioning the area into lanes, a. can be adapted to any number of police personnel. b. is intended to be used only with one officer. c. works well inside. d. must always be used with a traffic director. 3. Which of the following is not a goal of a search during an investigation? a. to establish that a crime was committed b. to establish when the crime was committed c. to identify who committed the crime d. to punish the offender 4. Which of the following do investigators not need to know in order to conduct an effective search? a. the legal requirements for searching b. the identity of the offender c. the elements of the crime being investigated d. the items being searched for 5. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids what type of searches and seizures? a. illegal c. unreasonable b. unsupervised d. undercover 6. In which of the following cases is a search not legal? a. The search is incidental to a lawful arrest. b. An officer stops a suspicious person and believes the person to be armed. c. An emergency exists. d. An officer conducts...

Words: 2519 - Pages: 11