Criminal ProcedureSearch and seizure
Chimel v. California
Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 23, 1969 · Core case
Full citation
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.This brief explains the opinion as issued. Later treatment and current-law status are not assessed here.
Chimel
arresteepetitioner
California
staterespondent
Brief
Facts
Late in the afternoon of September 13, 1965, three police officers arrived at the Santa Ana, California, home of Chimel with a warrant authorizing his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop. The officers knocked, identified themselves to Chimel's wife, and asked if they might come inside. She ushered them into the house, where they waited 10 or 15 minutes until Chimel returned home from work. When Chimel entered, an officer handed him the arrest warrant and asked for permission to look around. Chimel objected, but the officers advised him that on the basis of the lawful arrest, they would conduct a search. No search warrant had been issued. Accompanied by Chimel's wife, the officers looked through the entire three-bedroom house, including the attic, the garage, and a small workshop. In some rooms the search was relatively cursory. In the master bedroom and sewing room, the officers directed Chimel's wife to open drawers and move contents from side to side so they might view any items from the burglary. The officers seized numerous items, primarily coins, but also several medals, tokens, and a few other objects. The entire search took between 45 minutes and an hour.
Issue
Can the warrantless search of an arrestee's entire house be justified under the Fourth Amendment as a search incident to a lawful arrest?
Holding
The warrantless search of Chimel's house went far beyond his person and the area from within which he might have obtained a weapon or something usable as evidence. Absent a search warrant, nothing justified extending the search beyond that area, so its scope was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and Chimel's conviction cannot stand.
IRAC
Learn the citation form
Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.
The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/chimel-v-california