/serch IN-suh-dent too uh LAW-ful uh-REST/·doctrine
Also known as:search incident to arrest · searches incident to arrest · incident search · SILA
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A warrantless search exception under the Fourth Amendment that permits officers to search an arrestee's person and the area within immediate control. The exception rests on the need to protect officer safety and preserve evidence. The search must occur substantially contemporaneously in time and place with the arrest and remain limited to the arrestee's wingspan.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Delayed Vessel Search After Tow
Harbor police arrested Sarah Sullivan at the public dock and removed her from the scene. Hours later officers towed the vessel to a fenced pier a mile away and opened locked compartments. The search cannot qualify because the delay and relocation severed any connection to the arrest itself.
Frisk After On-Scene Arrest
An officer arrested Sierra Santos for loitering and immediately patted down her outer clothing, feeling a gun. The limited search was justified because it occurred contemporaneously with the arrest and was confined to the area within Santos's immediate control.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Study Supplements
Terry v. Ohio392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
Vehicle Area Search After Arrest
Officers arrested Samantha Stone at her car for a traffic offense and searched the passenger compartment within her wingspan, finding a weapon. The search of the immediate area was permissible to ensure officer safety and preserve evidence.
Michigan v. Long463 U.S. 1032 (1983)
Search Incident During Home Arrest
Officers arrested Stella Shapiro inside her home pursuant to a valid warrant and searched the area within her immediate control, discovering incriminating documents. The seizure was lawful because the search remained limited to the arrestee's wingspan and occurred contemporaneously with the arrest.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire403 U.S. 443 (1971)
Search After Warrantless Home Arrest
Officers entered Samuel Soto's apartment without a warrant, arrested him for burglary, and searched the area within his immediate control. Evidence found during the subsequent search was suppressed because the initial entry violated the Fourth Amendment.
Payton v. New York445 U.S. 573 (1980)
Vehicle Search After Arrestee Secured
Officers arrested Spencer Silver for drug possession and placed him in the back of a patrol car. They then searched the passenger compartment of his vehicle and found a firearm. The search exceeded the exception because Silver was already secured and posed no threat to the officers or evidence.
Arizona v. Gant556 U.S. 332 (2009)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
Must a search incident to arrest occur at the exact moment and location of the arrest?+
Yes. The search must be substantially contemporaneous in both time and place with the arrest. A search conducted hours later at a different location after the vehicle has been towed falls outside the exception.
Supporting sources
Does issuance of a traffic citation alone justify a search incident to arrest?+
No. An actual custodial arrest is required. A search following only a citation is unlawful even if state law would have permitted an arrest instead.
Supporting sources
How far may officers search under the wingspan limitation?+
Officers may search the arrestee's person and any area from which the arrestee could reasonably reach a weapon or destroy evidence. Areas beyond immediate physical control, such as a locked cabinet across a room, are outside the scope.
Supporting sources
Does a lawful arrest under state law automatically validate a federal search incident to arrest?+
Yes. The Fourth Amendment requires only probable cause for the arrest. A search incident to that arrest remains valid even if the arrest violated state procedural rules.
Supporting sources
392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)Criminal Procedure
…concealed weapons. On the motion to suppress the guns the prosecution took the position that they had been seized following a search incident to a lawful arrest. The trial court rejected this theory, stating that it "would be stretching the facts beyond reasonable comprehension" to find that Officer McFadden had had probable cause to arrest the men…