在Chimel诉加利福尼亚州案(1969年)中,最高法院裁定,逮捕令并未赋予官员搜查被捕者整个财产的机会。根据第四修正案,官员必须专门为此目的获得搜查令,即使他们有逮捕令。关键点:Chimel诉加利福尼亚州(1969年)。在Chimel诉加利福尼亚州,最高法院分析了警察是否可以使用逮捕令搜查房屋。大多数意见认为,警察在被捕时没有逮捕令搜查他的家时违反了Chimel的第四修正案。该决定限制搜索被逮捕者和该人周围的区域。 1965年9月13日,三名警官向Ted Chimel的房子走近,并附有逮捕令。 Chimel的妻子回答了门,让警察进入他们的家,他们可以等到Chimel回来。当他回来时,警察向他递交了逮捕令并要求“环顾四周。”Chimel抗议但是警察坚持说逮捕令他们有权这样做。警察开始搜查房子的每个房间。在两个房间里,他们指示Chimel的妻子打开抽屉。他们没收了他们认为与此案有关的物品。在法庭上,Chimel的律师辩称,逮捕令无效,对Chimel家的无证搜查违反了他的第四修正案权利。下级法院和上诉法院认定,无证搜查是“逮捕事件”,这是基于善意的。最高法院批准了一份证明书。

加拿大蒙特利尔大学法律论文代写:加利福尼亚州案

In Chimel v. California (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the arrest warrant did not give officials the opportunity to search the entire property of the arrested person. According to the Fourth Amendment, officials must obtain a search warrant specifically for this purpose, even if they have an arrest warrant. Key point: Chimel v. California (1969). In Chimel v. California, the Supreme Court analyzed whether the police could use the arrest warrant to search the house. Most of the comments were that the police violated Chimel’s Fourth Amendment when they were arrested without a warrant to search his home. This decision limits the search for the arrested person and the area around the person. On September 13, 1965, three police officers approached Ted Chimel’s house with an arrest warrant. Chimel’s wife answered the door and let the police enter their home. They could wait until Chimel came back. When he returned, the police handed him an arrest warrant and asked to “look around.” Chimel protested but the police insisted that the arrest gave them the right to do so. The police began to search every room in the house. In two rooms, they instructed Chimel’s wife to open the drawer. They confiscated the items they thought were related to the case. In court, Chimel’s lawyer argued that the arrest warrant was invalid and that the unlicensed search of the Chimel family violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The lower court and the appeal court found that the unlicensed search was an “arresting incident” based on goodwill. The Supreme Court approved a certificate.

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注