Also known as: area within the immediate control · areas within immediate control · immediate control area · Chimel area · wingspan search · search incident to arrest scope
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The space surrounding an arrestee from which the arrestee might gain access to a weapon or destructible evidence. This zone is measured by the arrestee's actual physical capability at the time of the search and does not extend to the entire premises or to areas beyond immediate reach once the arrestee is secured.
Officers arrested Adam Anderson backstage at a concert venue and handcuffed him beside a folding table. They searched Anderson's person, his nearby backpack, and the table surface. The search of the locked road case several feet away and the dressing room down the hallway fell outside the permitted zone.
Officers arrested Austin Abbott at his desk in an open-plan office and handcuffed him while seated. They searched Abbott and the desk drawers within arm's reach. The locked file cabinet across the room and the server closet down the hall lay beyond his immediate control.
Officers arrested Anita Ali after stopping her car and removed her from the vehicle. They searched the passenger compartment and jacket on the backseat. Areas outside the car remained outside the zone of immediate control.
On April 9, 1978, New York State Trooper Douglas Nicot stopped a vehicle traveling at an excessive speed on the New York Thruway. The car contained four men including respondent Roger Belton. Nicot smelled burnt marihuana and observed an envelope marked Supergold on the floor that he associated with marihuana. Nicot directed the men to exit the car and placed them under arrest for unlawful possession of marihuana. He patted each man down and separated them into four areas along the Thruway. Nicot then searched the passenger compartment and found a black leather jacket belonging to Belton on the back seat. Nicot unzipped a pocket of the jacket and discovered cocaine inside. He placed the jacket in his own vehicle and transported the four arrestees to a nearby police station. Belton was subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance. In the trial court Belton moved to suppress the cocaine. The motion was denied and he pleaded guilty to a lesser included offense while preserving his constitutional claim. The Appellate Division upheld the search and seizure. The New York Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseOfficers arrested Aaron Adams beside his parked car and secured him in a patrol vehicle. They searched the car interior for evidence related to the arrest. The search exceeded the immediate-control area once Adams was secured away from the vehicle.
On August 25, 1999, Tucson police officers Griffith and Reed responded to an anonymous tip that the residence at 2524 North Walnut Avenue was being used to sell drugs by knocking on the front door and speaking with Rodney Gant, who identified himself and stated that he expected the owner to return later. The officers left and conducted a records check revealing that Gant's driver's license had been suspended and that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license. When the officers returned to the house that evening, they found a man near the back of the house and a woman in a car parked in front of it. After a third officer arrived, they arrested the man for providing a false name and the woman for possessing drug paraphernalia. Both arrestees were handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars when Gant arrived. Gant arrived in his car, parked at the end of the driveway, and got out. Officer Griffith recognized the car, confirmed Gant's identity with a flashlight, called to him, and arrested him 10 to 12 feet from the vehicle before handcuffing him. Because the other arrestees occupied the only patrol cars at the scene, Griffith called for backup. When two more officers arrived, they locked Gant in the backseat of their vehicle. After Gant had been handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, two officers searched his car. One of them found a gun, and the other discovered a bag of cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. Gant was charged with two offenses of possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his car on the ground that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. A jury found Gant guilty on both drug counts, and he was sentenced to a 3-year term of imprisonment. After protracted state-court proceedings, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the search of Gant's car was unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court granted the State's petition for certiorari.
View caseOfficers stopped Adrian Aguilar's vehicle and observed a weapon on the floorboard. They conducted a limited search of the passenger compartment while Aguilar remained nearby. The protective sweep was justified by specific facts indicating potential danger within reach.
Handcuffing the arrestee behind the back eliminates the practical ability to reach items several feet away. Officers may still search the arrestee's person and containers or spaces within arm's reach at the moment of arrest. Areas beyond that reach require a warrant or another exception.
Supporting sources
No. The rule focuses on the arrestee's actual physical capability after being secured rather than the overall dimensions of the workspace. A locked cabinet eight feet away or a server closet down a hallway remains outside the wingspan even in a compact room.
Supporting sources
A protective sweep beyond the wingspan requires specific and articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that another person posing a danger is present. The sweep must be quick and limited to spaces where a person could hide.
Supporting sources
…In New York v. Belton , 453 U. S. 454 (1981), we determined that the lower courts "have found no workable definition of the area within the immediate control of the arrestee' when that area arguably includes the interior of an automobile and the arrestee is its recent occupant." Id. , at 460. In order to provide a "workable rule," ibid. , we…