|
Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the ''Chimel'' rule, is a legal principle that allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person, and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape, and the destruction of evidence.〔 ''But see Maryland v. Buie'', 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (holding Fourth Amendment permits properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with in-home arrest when searching officer possesses reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that area to be swept harbors individual posing danger to those on arrest scene).〕 In most cases, a search warrant pursuant to the Fourth Amendment is required to perform a lawful search; an exception to this requirement is SITA.〔Kerr, Orin (2010-12-14) (The Origins of the “Search Incident to Arrest” Exception ), ''The Volokh Conspiracy''〕 In ''Harris v. United States'' (1947), the United States Supreme Court held that an officer was permitted to perform a warrantless search during or immediately after a lawful arrest of the arrestee and their premises, regardless of what the arrest was for. In ''United States v. Rabinowitz'' (1950), the court narrowed its ruling to searches of the area within the arrestee's "immediate control." In ''Chimel v. California'' (1969), the Court further limited the exception to the person arrested and the area within their immediate control "in order to remove any weapons that the () might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape" and to prevent the "concealment or destruction" of evidence. ==See also== *Information privacy law *''United States v. Robinson'' (1973) – The U.S. Supreme Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment." *''Arizona v. Gant'' (2009) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police can search a car following arrest only if the person arrested "could have accessed his car at the time of the search." In other words, if the person arrested could conceivably reach into his car for a weapon, then a search based on officer safety is permitted. Otherwise, the old practice of allowing officers to "search (car ) incident to arrest" is no longer allowed, unless the police have reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. *''Riley v. California'' (2014) – The U.S. Supreme Court held that "police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested."〔 In other words, unless an exigent circumstance is present, police may not search an arrestee's cell phone without a warrant. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「searches incident to a lawful arrest」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|