Ask Question
17 April, 01:48

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the full search of the house was unreasonable, but a search of the arrestee was permitted "to remove any weapons that the [arrestee] might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape" and to "seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction."a) Chimel vs. California

b) Rawlings vs. Kentucky

c) Knowles vs. Iowa

d) Sibron vs. New York

+4
Answers (1)
  1. 17 April, 02:10
    0
    a) Chimel vs. California

    Explanation:

    The Chimel vs California case was a result of police officers going to Chimel's home with a warrant that authorized his arrest for burglary. After the warrant was served, the police officers comprehensively searched the house of Chimel. The search revealed various items that were used as exhibit to convict Chimel. The State Courts upheld Chimel's conviction. However the Supreme Court in a 6-2 decision, did not find the search of the full house reasonable, as a search warrant would be needed for this cause.
Know the Answer?
Not Sure About the Answer?
Get an answer to your question ✅ “In this case, the Supreme Court held that the full search of the house was unreasonable, but a search of the arrestee was permitted "to ...” in 📙 Social Studies if there is no answer or all answers are wrong, use a search bar and try to find the answer among similar questions.
Search for Other Answers