Chimel v. California Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
Chimel v. California | 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
Suppose police officers arrive at a suspect’s house with an arrest warrant, but without a search warrant for the house. After they arrest the suspect, they proceed to search his home. In the 1969 case of Chimel versus California, the United States Supreme Court set forth the parameters for conducting a search in these circumstances.
Police officers in Santa Ana, California, developed probable cause to believe that Ted Chimel committed two burglaries, during which he stole rare coins and other valuable items. The officers obtained an arrest warrant regarding one of the burglaries and went to Chimel’s two-story home. Chimel’s wife allowed the officers to come inside and wait for Chimel to return from work. When Chimel entered the house through the front door, the officers arrested him.
Over Chimel’s objection and without a search warrant, the officers then searched his entire home, including his upstairs bedroom, for nearly an hour. Inside dresser drawers in the bedroom, the officers found old coins, medals, and tokens, some of which were later identified as stolen in one of the burglaries. A state prosecutor charged Chimel with burglary.
At trial, Chimel moved to suppress the evidence taken from his bedroom, claiming it was the product of an unconstitutional search. The court denied the motion, and Chimel was convicted of burglary. Chimel appealed first to the California Court of Appeal and then to the California Supreme Court. Both courts affirmed Chimel’s conviction after concluding that the warrantless search of his bedroom was a reasonable search, since it happened in connection with Chimel’s arrest.
Chimel successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@1LElife]

you guys should really include the SOCTUS decisions on these cases, as that is what most people watching these videos are researching

[@brighamschellinger147]

You have to pay for the subscription service to get the whole video. Making briefs in law school it's nice to hear an explanation of the facts though.

[@ryanlilly1630]

clutch video btw lol helped me write a paper hours before due

[@TheRealDr.Mabuse]

What a cliff hanger....

[@sakucelty]

I can’t unhear Andy Field’s voice as the HandUnit.

[@johnnysaunders]

For this who want to know how SCOTUS ruled, 6-2 in favor of Chimel. The scope of the search was too wide and unconstitutional.

[@tonycordero955]

Why don't they put win or lose at the end...wat happened

[@vics128]

When he says successfully petitioned the Supreme Court… that means he won his case and the evidence gathered after the arrest is suppressed.

[@brighamschellinger147]

You have to pay for the service to get the last part of the video.

[@kianzarrin]

did he win in supreme court? it didn't show on the diagram.

[@mtadrous493]

why would you leave us hanging, that's horrible

[@Carl-LaFong1618]

Wait, there might be legal precedent for this. Land snatching, land snatching..... "Ah, Haley vs. United States. Haley: 7, United States nothing."