Also known as: searches incident to legal arrest · search incident to arrest · search incident to lawful arrest · SILA
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A narrow exception to the warrant requirement that permits officers to search an arrestee and the area within the arrestee's immediate control for weapons or destructible evidence. The exception applies only when the search occurs substantially contemporaneously in time and place with a lawful custodial arrest.
Sean Steele was arrested at a rest area on suspicion of cargo theft. Officers handcuffed him, removed him from the rig, and had the tractor-trailer towed to a secured police lot without any search at the scene. Detectives conducted a thorough search of the cab the next afternoon while Sean remained in jail. The remote timing and location of the search placed it outside the incident-to-arrest doctrine.
Selena Singh was stopped for a traffic violation and ordered from her car. Officers observed a knife on the floorboard and conducted a limited search of the passenger compartment for additional weapons while she remained nearby. The search uncovered no further items but stayed within the bounds permitted when an occupant is arrested from a vehicle.
In a rural area of Michigan one evening shortly after midnight, Deputies Howell and Lewis observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed. The officers observed the car turning down a side road, where it swerved off into a shallow ditch. The officers stopped to investigate. Long, the only occupant of the automobile, met the deputies at the rear of the car, which was protruding from the ditch onto the road. The door on the driver's side of the vehicle was left open. Deputy Howell requested Long to produce his operator's license, but he did not respond. After the request was repeated, Long produced his license. Long again failed to respond when Howell requested him to produce the vehicle registration. After another repeated request, Long, who Howell thought appeared to be under the influence of something, turned from the officers and began walking toward the open door of the vehicle. The officers followed Long and both observed a large hunting knife on the floorboard of the driver's side of the car. The officers then stopped Long's progress and subjected him to a Terry protective patdown, which revealed no weapons. Long and Deputy Lewis then stood by the rear of the vehicle while Deputy Howell shined his flashlight into the interior of the vehicle, but did not actually enter it. The purpose of Howell's action was to search for other weapons. The officer noticed that something was protruding from under the armrest on the front seat. He knelt in the vehicle and lifted the armrest. He saw an open pouch on the front seat, and upon flashing his light on the pouch, determined that it contained what appeared to be marihuana. After Deputy Howell showed the pouch and its contents to Deputy Lewis, Long was arrested for possession of marihuana. A further search of the interior of the vehicle, including the glovebox, revealed neither more contraband nor the vehicle registration. The officers decided to impound the vehicle. Deputy Howell opened the trunk, which did not have a lock, and discovered inside it approximately 75 pounds of marihuana. The Barry County Circuit Court denied Long's motion to suppress the marihuana taken from both the interior of the car and its trunk. He was subsequently convicted of possession of marihuana. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Long's conviction, holding that the search of the passenger compartment was valid as a protective search under Terry. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the sole justification of the Terry search, protection of the police officers and others nearby, cannot justify the search in this case. The marihuana found in Long's trunk was considered by the court below to be the fruit of the illegal search of the interior, and was also suppressed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the authority of a police officer to protect himself by conducting a Terry-type search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle during the lawful investigatory stop of the occupant of the vehicle.
View caseSteven Silva was arrested inside his apartment after officers entered without knocking. A subsequent search of the immediate area around him produced drug paraphernalia. The validity of the arrest itself supported the limited search even though the entry procedure was later challenged.
Police officers obtained a search warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of petitioner Booker T. Hudson in Michigan. Upon arriving to execute the warrant, the officers knocked on the door and announced their presence. They waited only three to five seconds before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson's home. Inside the residence, officers discovered large quantities of drugs, including cocaine rocks in Hudson's pocket, and a loaded gun lodged between the cushion and armrest of the chair in which he was sitting. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. He moved to suppress all the inculpatory evidence, arguing that the officers' premature entry violated his rights. The Michigan trial court granted the motion to suppress. On interlocutory review, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Hudson was subsequently convicted of the possession charges. He renewed his suppression claim on appeal, but the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected it and affirmed the conviction. The Michigan Supreme Court again declined review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the case.
View caseSofia Stern was arrested for driving with a suspended license and placed in the back of a patrol car. Officers then searched the passenger compartment of her vehicle and found a firearm. Because she was secured and no longer within reaching distance, the search exceeded the permitted scope.
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 caseSamuel Soto was arrested at his office desk and handcuffed with his hands behind his back. Officers immediately opened the desk drawers inches from his chair and recovered incriminating documents. The search remained limited to the area from which Soto could have reached a weapon or evidence.
On the afternoon of September 13, 1965, three police officers arrived at the Santa Ana, California home of Ted Steven Chimel with a warrant authorizing his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop. The officers knocked on the door, identified themselves to Chimel's wife, and asked if they might come inside. She admitted the officers, who waited ten to fifteen minutes until Chimel returned from work. When Chimel entered, an officer handed him the arrest warrant and asked if he had any coins or medals. Chimel replied that he did not. The officers then asked if he minded if they looked around. Chimel objected, but the officers advised him that on the basis of the lawful arrest they would conduct a search anyway. No search warrant had been issued. The officers looked through the entire three-bedroom house, including the attic, the garage, and a small workshop. In the master bedroom and sewing room the officers directed Chimel's wife to open drawers and move their contents so the officers could view any items. The search lasted between forty-five minutes and one hour and yielded numerous coins, medals, tokens, and other objects. At Chimel's subsequent state trial on two charges of burglary, the seized items were admitted into evidence over his objection that they had been unconstitutionally seized. He was convicted. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Both lower courts held that the arrest was lawful and that the search was justified as incident to that arrest. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the petitioner's constitutional claims regarding the scope of the search.
View caseStephen Shaw was arrested while seated in the front passenger seat of a car. Officers searched the entire passenger compartment, including containers, and located contraband. The search covered the area within the arrestee's control at the time of the arrest from the vehicle.
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 caseThe search must be substantially contemporaneous in both time and place with the arrest. Once the arrestee is removed and the property is impounded, the justifications of officer safety and evidence preservation no longer support a later search under this exception.
Supporting sources
No. A search incident to arrest requires an actual custodial arrest supported by probable cause. A citation without an arrest does not trigger the exception even if state law would have permitted an arrest.
Supporting sources
Once the arrestee is handcuffed, officers may search only the area from which the arrestee could still reach a weapon or evidence. Areas beyond that physical reach, such as distant cabinets or separate rooms, fall outside the exception.
Supporting sources
A vehicle search incident to arrest is limited to situations in which the arrestee remains within reaching distance of the passenger compartment or evidence of the offense of arrest is likely to be found there. Securing the arrestee in a patrol car typically removes that justification.
Supporting sources