ipl-logo

Chimel Vs. California Case Study

455 Words2 Pages

Title: Chimel v. California Date/Court: United States Supreme Court, 1969 Facts: This case deals with Ted Chimel, who they suspected robbed a local coin shop. On September 13, 1965, several officers from Santa Ana came to the home of Chimel with an arrest warrant for his expected involvement in the burglary. The officers arrived at the door and identified themselves to Chimel’s wife and asked if they could come into the home, she agreed and showed them into the house. While in the house the officers waited 10-15 minutes until Chimel came home from work. Upon his arrival one of the officers showed Chimel the arrest warrant and asked if he could look around, Chimel objected and in the short of it said no. Even with him objecting the officers read Chimel his rights and then continued to look around the small house, garage, and workshop. In the main bedroom of Chimel home the officers found coins, medals, and tokens in the dresser drawer. Chimel was arrested and the items were placed into evidence, were he would be tried on two charges of burglary. Legal Question: When issued …show more content…

They have also said that it is reasonable for any officer to do an immediate area search of where that individual is to make sure that they can not grab anything for a weapon like for example a knife. The Supreme Court clearly notes in its opinion that such searches have to happen in the immediate area of arrest and any such search outside that area must be made with a search warrant. In Chimel case the officers could have patted down Chimel and then done a search of the immediate area to make sure that no weapons were hiding around. But once they began looking all around the house that requires a search warrant. The Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court’s

Show More
Related
899 Words | 4 Pages

This applies to Sam Wardlow’s situation in which evidence was founded illegally without a proper search warrant. Also, the weapon that was found in Sam’s bag does not relate to any prior crime that may connect him to. This is not in anyway, allowed for officer Nolan to have even stopped Mr.Wardlow. Possibly, if Sam was connected to a crime beforehand and if the officers did have a proper search warrant. Then there is no way Sam’s rights were violated.

Read More
510 Words | 3 Pages

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.

Read More
247 Words | 1 Pages

Case: Horton v. California Citation: 496 U.S. 128 (1990) Year Decided: 1990 Facts: After obtaining a warrant for stolen items from an armed robbery, a California police officer searched petitioner Horton’s home. The officer had described both the weapons used and property stolen in the affidavit for the search warrant, but the Magistrate issuing the warrant only authorized a search for the stolen property. Even though the police did not discover the stolen property, weapons matching the officer’s description were found in plain view and seized. Horton ended up being convicted of armed robbery after a motion to suppress the seized evidence was denied by the trial court.

Read More
1593 Words | 7 Pages

The Majority of the court 's decision includes McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. The court had to decide in this case whether the seriousness of an offence or knowing that one might be a threat to public safety can be a justification to stop anyone without having solid evidence against them. The court stated that both Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer were guilty of carrying concealed weapons in a public place. The police had the right to search them even though their car didn’t match the description described by the 911 caller because the officers have to be consistent with their duty towards public safety and act in accordance to the seriousness of the

Read More
1299 Words | 6 Pages

There was also according to the case marijuana being used. I believe that the officers also could have charged the party goers with possession of marijuana and maybe could have done further investigation to see if any other crimes have been committed. The house was totally trashed and more than likely caused the homeowner to spend a large amount of money to fix, repair, or rebuild what very was destructed at the

Read More
1090 Words | 5 Pages

PARTIES INVOLVED Kinney Kinmon Lau on behalf of the 1,800 non-English speaking students filed a suit against the San Francisco Unified School District. FACTS After a mandated integration of the San Francisco school system following a court order in 1971, a report was stated that in the San Francisco Unified School District there were approximately 2,800 students of Chinese decent in their school system that did not speak English. An estimated 1,000 students were receiving language support while the remaining 1,800 students were not receiving any additional support.

Read More
429 Words | 2 Pages

This is a landmark case as the State of Arizona argued the "bright line" rule was established in New York v. Belton, and the U.S. Supreme Court defined the "bright line" rule as to authorize law enforcement officers the right to search a vehicle's passenger compartment, including the immediate area of where the arrestee was in search incident to arrest, after a lawful arrest has been made and is a result of a contemporaneous incident.   In Chimel v. California, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a search incident to an arrest is permissible as long as the officer can articulate safety for the officers is present and preserving evidence is a factor. Furthermore, Thornton v. United States gave an additive to law enforcement as the U.S Supreme Court ruled that officers could initiate warrantless searches of vehicles incident to arrest of both occupants and recent occupants (Staff,

Read More
780 Words | 4 Pages

In Chapter 15 of "California Government and Politics Today," Mona Field takes readers on a thought-provoking journey through the myriad challenges faced by the state of California. This review aims to critically assess the chapter's content, focusing on its exploration of future challenges and the proposed solutions to address these pressing issues. By evaluating the strengths and potential limitations of Field's analysis, this essay seeks to shed light on the completeness of the chapter's discourse on California's future challenges. Understanding the Challenges Chapter 15 provides a comprehensive analysis of the multifaceted challenges confronting California in the contemporary era. Field adeptly covers a diverse range of issues, spanning

Read More
859 Words | 4 Pages

In Cal’s case, on determining who he can file a lawsuit against and who would be liable for his injuries would be first be Anne. Anne goes first because she was the one that made the final impact and that incident was the one that cause Cal to loose both of his legs. So Cal can sue Anne, for being the reason he can’t walk now. Even though Cal was in a car accident minutes before that didn’t cause his legs just minor injuries. Anne would be liable for any and all expenses, any pain and suffering and also if the incident made him loose income from the injury.

Read More
226 Words | 1 Pages

Concessions fully denies that it violated the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. by not properly compensating Mr. Berkeley for any non-tipped duties. The FLSA permits tipped employees to perform related duties that are not directed toward producing tips. See 29 C.F.R. §531.56 (e).

Read More
1872 Words | 8 Pages

This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all

Read More
181 Words | 1 Pages

Search and seizure law is actually one of the detrimental issues in the criminal justice system. Many officers are sometimes faced with constraints and are not able to work properly given that they fail to understand and distinguish between situations when search warrant are required ( Del, 2014). In incidents that have lawful arrest as well as when there is a plain view exception. In areas where consent is given by a person in authority, there is no need for the search warrant required together with the police stops and frisking a person whom they have a reasonable suspicion on of an act that is equated to a crime. Another example is when a situation is an emergency and there is a hot pursuit given the evidence may disappear before the warrant

Read More
539 Words | 3 Pages

In this case, seized property was done so by the private sector. The private sector is not bound by constitutional restrictions. Nemeth states (Nemeth,C,2012, Private Security and The Law,p.72)," The Supreme Court held unequivocally that Fourth Amendment protection was not available to litigants and claimants arrested, searched, or seized by private parties. " The private sector receives its authority through statutory and common law. According to (Nemeth,2012,p.73)," Because private police do not derive their authority from a constitutional framework, the foundation of the arrest action rests in common and statutory law - those codifications that simultaneously give the power of arrest to a private person."

Read More
269 Words | 2 Pages

Due to the stop and frisk law, police officers are allowed to stop anyone that they choose on the street and search them, but only if they have reasonable suspicion. This law was established in 1968 in the case of Terry v. Ohio, when police was stopping an individual on the street they needed to make it a justified stop and frisk. For example: a suspicious person was walking around in the middle of night ducking and dodging down dark alleyways, the police have a right to stop and frisk this person to see if they are armed and dangerous and to question them. But back to the Terry v. Ohio case, the stop and frisk law has been an effective tool for police officers since 1968 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it.

Read More
796 Words | 4 Pages

An officer may only be allowed to search a person 's personal belongings if their reasoning is associated with a lawful arrest and if they have a probable cause to search (Matthews). After it being a huge deal in New York, other cities and states began embracing the use of stop-and-frisk as it began growing around the United States. In the 1950s police officials in other cities took up, and expanded, the stop-and-search tactics by using the LAPD to embrace the theory of crime

Read More

More about Chimel Vs. California Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document