United States v. Chadwick | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued April 26, 1977 Decided June 21, 1977 | |
Full case name | United States v. Chadwick et al. |
Citations | 433 U.S. 1 (more) 97 S. Ct. 2476; 53 L. Ed. 2d 538; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 133 |
Case history | |
Prior | Motion to suppress evidence granted, United States v. Chadwick, 393 F. Supp. 763 (D. Mass. 1975); affirmed, 532 F.2d 773 (1st Cir. 1976); cert. granted, 429 U.S. 814 (1976). |
Holding | |
Absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Burger, joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens |
Concurrence | Brennan |
Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Rehnquist |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Overruled by | |
California v. Acevedo (1991) (in part) |
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile exception. The Court reasoned that while luggage is movable like an automobile, it does not have the lesser expectation of privacy associated with an automobile.[1]
Chadwick was later abrogated on other grounds by California v. Acevedo (1991),[2] in which the Court overruled Chadwick's holding with respect to containers within a vehicle, holding that police may search a container within a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the container itself holds contraband or evidence.
The holding in Chadwick that a search incident to arrest must not be too remote in time or place is still good law.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/3Views:3 3459 493409 268
-
Search Incident To Arrest a Fourth Amendment Update
-
Founding Fragments - Star-Spangled Souvenirs
-
Is Black Panther's Killmonger the Best Villain Since the Joker? – Wisecrack Quick Take
Transcription
Hey, this is going to be a series that tries to make sense of the array of cases and the array of issues that encompass what we call the search and seizure area of the Fourth Amendment. It is a battlefield out there. What we are going to begin with here today is an area of search and seizure case law that deals with what is commonly referred to as searches incident to arrest. Now, what I am going to do is briefly discuss where the cases may go or where they are beginning to go after People v. Gant. What do you mean you don't know what People v. Gant is? Everybody knows what People v. Gant is. Actually, I am just joking. Nobody knows what People v. Gant is. That is why I am doing this video. People v. Gant is the United States Supreme Court case that said that officers when they arrest a person in a traffic stop, for example, while driving without a license or a suspended license, officers cannot just because they have arrested that person on a traffic case cannot go into the car and search the contents of the car. So, after People v. Gant very fundamental basic questions remained open. One very important question left open after Gant is: What happens if an individual is arrested by the police in a situation where he is not in his car, but he is carrying varies degrees of personal items? For example purses, luggage, bags, wallets those types of things. If an officer arrests a person walking down the street and they have these items - these personal items, what does the law of search and seizure say about the police being able to search those items? So, the Illinois Supreme Court has recently taken a position and has begun to give us answers on these types of situations. People v. Creagan is a case out of the Illinois Supreme Court that begins to address this issue. Lets go over the facts in People v. Cregan, in that case an individual - In that case the police received a tip that there is a known gang member getting off the train. That known gang member also has a warrant for his arrest, it is a child support thing, but what ever, a warrant is a warrant. The officers go to the train station at the time the informant said the individual was going to be there. And sure enough, as the police officer is approaching the Defendant he is getting of the train and walking towards his girlfriend or some other significant other person. The Defendant at that time is carrying two bags. He has a gym like bag and he also has a piece of luggage. And again in these cases they always fight about what happens first and what happens second. And its actually very important because those very small details effect usually the outcome of the case. The way the court attacked the case is by looking at the personal item in question in this case and trying to compare it to those items that we already know can be searched. Wallets, purses, items inside front pockets And so the court was asking essentially what kind of association with the person does this item have to have in order to justify the police searching it? What does that mean? Basically, what the court did is say, "Look we are not going to play the definition game." "We are not going to make rules about luggage that is separate from --- that is distinct from a purse." The court said we are not going to play that vocabulary name - that vocabulary game - because it is going to get crazy. It is going to get confusing and officers aren't going to know exactly what is proper and what is not proper. The court said all of that is out the window. The basic simple rule is this: If a person is possession, is carrying, or is immediately associated with a personal item - if that person is in immediate control of that item when they are arrested the cops can search it as a search incident to arrest. That is kind of the gist of the rule. I would say that the Illinois Supreme Court has definitely gone in favor of the police on this issue in this case. And that is where we are at in this front on the Fourth Amendment battlefield.
Case
Respondents had recently stepped off a train and were putting a suitcase into the trunk of a car when they were stopped by federal agents. Federal agents had probable cause to arrest the respondents and to believe that the suitcase contained narcotics. The respondents were arrested. About an hour and a half after the arrest, the agents opened and searched the suitcase without a warrant.[1]
Holding
In order to search a locked container that is in the exclusive possession of law enforcement officials, those law enforcement officials must get a warrant (unless an exception applies).[1] In this case, an exception did not apply.
Subsequent Jurisprudence
After California v. Acevedo (1991), this protection no longer applied to people in automobiles because people in automobiles have a diminished expectation of privacy.[2] However, it still applies to people walking on the street.
Applications
- People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (2011)
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 433
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
- Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988)
References
External links
- ^ Text of United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio) }
![](/s/i/modif.png)