Search Incident to Arrest
Rule
When police make a lawful custodial arrest, they may conduct a warrantless search of (1) the person of the arrestee and (2) the area within the arrestee’s immediate control — defined as the area from which the arrestee might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence (Chimel v. California).
Elements / Test
Twin aims of Chimel:
- Protect officer safety by disarming the arrestee
- Prevent destruction of evidence
Scope:
- Full search of the person is always permissible incident to a lawful custodial arrest (United States v. Robinson) — includes containers on the person
- Grab area: the area within the arrestee’s immediate control at the time of arrest (lower courts differ on whether this is measured at time of arrest or time of search)
- Protective sweep of adjoining spaces: without any suspicion, officers may look in immediately adjoining spaces from which attack could come; with articulable suspicion, a broader protective sweep (Maryland v. Buie)
Vehicles — Gant rule: Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to arrest only if:
- The arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search (Chimel rationale), OR
- It is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the particular offense of arrest (Arizona v. Gant)
Cell phones — Riley exception: A warrant is required to search the digital contents of a cell phone, even incident to a lawful arrest (Riley v. California). The data cannot harm the officer and is not at risk of physical destruction.
Exceptions
- Search incident to a citation (not custodial arrest) is not permitted (Knowles v. Iowa)
- Search of a third party’s home is not permitted on the basis of an arrest warrant for someone else (Steagald)
- State law may prohibit arrest for a minor offense, but search incident to that arrest is still valid under Fourth Amendment if there is probable cause (Virginia v. Moore)
Policy
The search incident to arrest exception balances officer safety and evidence preservation against the privacy interest of the arrestee. Riley cabined the exception for cell phones because the data storage capacity of modern phones means a phone search is more invasive than the most thorough search of a home, and neither Chimel rationale applies to digital data.
Key Cases
- Chimel v. California — establishes the “grab area” rule and twin aims
- United States v. Robinson — full search of person always permitted incident to custodial arrest
- Arizona v. Gant — narrows vehicle search incident to arrest to Chimel situations or evidence of crime of arrest
- Riley v. California — cell phone search incident to arrest requires a warrant
- Maryland v. Buie — protective sweep of home permitted incident to arrest