“因此，有充分的理由可以搜查被捕者的人和”他直接控制范围内“的区域 – 将该短语称为他可能获得武器或可破坏证据的区域。” 然而，斯图尔特法官写道，任何进一步的搜查都侵犯了第四修正案。官员必须始终考虑案件的总体情况，但在第四修正案的限度内。根据大法官的说法，批准了第四修正案，以保护殖民地成员免受他们在英国统治下经历的无证搜查。可能的原因要求确保了监督，旨在遏制警察滥用权力。允许警察因没有可能的原因进行搜查，因为他们有搜查令，这违反了第四修正案的目的。法官白人和黑人不同意。他们辩称，在逮捕他之后，当他们搜查他的家时，官员没有违反Chimel的第四修正案保护。大法官担心多数意见使警察无法进行“紧急搜查”。如果警察逮捕某人，离开并带着搜查令返回，他们将面临丢失证据或收集已经改变的证据的风险。逮捕造成“紧急情况”，这意味着逮捕造成了一个合理的人会认为需要立即采取行动的情况。此外，法官们认为，被告很快就可以获得对不合理搜查的补救措施。在被捕后，被告可以与律师和法官取得联系，这是“在此后不久可能会对可能原因的问题提出异议的机会”。
“Therefore, there are good reasons to search the person arrested and “the area within his direct control” – refer to the phrase as an area where he may acquire weapons or destroy evidence.” However, Judge Stewart wrote that any Further searches have violated the Fourth Amendment. Officials must always consider the overall situation of the case, but within the limits of the Fourth Amendment. According to the Chancellor, the Fourth Amendment was approved to protect colonial members from the undocumented searches they experienced under British rule. The possible reasons for ensuring supervision are aimed at curbing the abuse of power by the police. The police were allowed to conduct searches for possible reasons because they had a search warrant, which violated the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. The judge whites and blacks disagreed. They argued that after they arrested him, when they searched his home, the officials did not violate Chimel’s Fourth Amendment protection. The Chief Justice was concerned that the majority opinion prevented the police from conducting an “emergency search”. If the police arrest someone, leave and return with a search warrant, they will be at risk of losing evidence or collecting evidence that has changed. Arrests create “emergency situations”, which means that arrests create a situation in which a reasonable person would think that immediate action is required. In addition, the judges believe that the defendant will soon receive remedies for unreasonable searches. After being arrested, the accused can get in touch with lawyers and judges. This is “an opportunity to object to possible problems shortly afterwards”.