Chimel V California

            
             In September 13, 1965, three officers arrived at Santa Ana, California, home of Ted Chimel with a warrant authorizing his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop. Officers introduced themselves to Chimel's wife, and asked if they could come inside. She admitted the officers into the house, where they waited 10 or 15 minutes until Chimel objected but was advised that the officers could conduct a search on the basis of the lawful arrest, but no search warrant was issued. The officers looked through the three bedroom house and found numerous items, including some coins. The search took about 45 minutes to an hour. He was later put on trial for two charges of burglary; the coins found in his house were admitted into evidence against him over his objection that they had been unconstitutionally seized. .
             The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the search of Chimel's house went far beyond any area where he might conceivably have obtained a weapon or destroyed any evidence and that no constitutional basis existed for extending the search to all areas of the house. The Court concluded that the scope of the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment as applied through the fourteenth Amendment, and Chimel's conviction was overturned. .
             The Chimel doctrine states that an officer can search a suspect without a warrant after a lawful arrest to protect themselves from danger and to secure evidence. I think this is a good idea because police officers shouldn't be able to do whatever they want. The incident that happened to Mr. Chimel was very unreasonable and very unfair. The amendments are here to protect us and give a person his rights. I agree with the Chimel Doctrine because it helps protect the officers and helps catch criminals.