In this case, the Supreme Court held that the full search of the house was unreasonable, but a search of the arrestee was permitted "to remove any weapons that the [arrestee] might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape" and to "seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction."a) Chimel vs. California

b) Rawlings vs. Kentucky

c) Knowles vs. Iowa

d) Sibron vs. New York

Question

Guest

Social Studies

5 November, 16:49

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the full search of the house was unreasonable, but a search of the arrestee was permitted "to remove any weapons that the [arrestee] might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape" and to "seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction."a) Chimel vs. California

b) Rawlings vs. Kentucky

c) Knowles vs. Iowa

d) Sibron vs. New York

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Dario Flynn · Answer 1

a) Chimel vs. California

Explanation:

The Chimel vs California case was a result of police officers going to Chimel's home with a warrant that authorized his arrest for burglary. After the warrant was served, the police officers comprehensively searched the house of Chimel. The search revealed various items that were used as exhibit to convict Chimel. The State Courts upheld Chimel's conviction. However the Supreme Court in a 6-2 decision, did not find the search of the full house reasonable, as a search warrant would be needed for this cause.