Chimel v. California
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Twenty-four decisions withheld Chimel from pre-decision searches, and two decisions declined to extend Chimel to later detention-site searches. The other reviewed opinions applied or distinguished Chimel, described Chimel's own overruling of Harris v. United States and United States v. Rabinowitz, relied on independent search doctrines, repeated treatment parentheticals about other cases, or rejected adverse arguments. Duplicate copies of United States v. Cozzetti produce one entry.
6,508 later cases cite Chimel v. California; 320 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Chimel v. California?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The court limited Chimel to searches conducted after the decision and affirmed a conviction based on a pre-Chimel search.
People v. Castillo · California Court of Appeal · filed
However, although nothing is said on the subject in Chimel, we believe that the court intends that the new rules should be given prospective application to, searches conducted after the date of its decision, rather than retroactive application to strike down convictions based on evidence validly obtained under the rules in force at the time the officers acted. ... We therefore conclude that, since the search here in question took place prior to June 23, 1969 (when the Chimel decision was filed), the new rules announced in that decision are not available to defendant.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Second Circuit denied Chimel retroactive application and upheld a conviction resting on a pre-Chimel apartment search.
United States v. Gonzalo Valdes · Second Circuit · filed
Whether the new doctrine announced in Chimel has retroactive application and, if so, to what extent, has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. However, a division of this court has recently held that the doctrine of Chimel should not be retroactively applied and has denied retroactive application. United States v. Bennett et al., on petition for rehearing of Thomas, decided September 9, 1969, 415 F.2d 1113. Therefore we uphold the conviction on count 4.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tenth Circuit declined to apply Chimel retroactively, used pre-Chimel search law, and affirmed denial of habeas relief.
Harold Whiteley v. Leonard Meacham, Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary · Tenth Circuit · filed
We will not make the retroactive determination with regard to the exclusionary rule stated in Chimel, supra. Under pre-Chimel standards, the Supreme Court of Wyoming specifically applied the principles then enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States, permitting the introduction of the evidence here in question. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the application for the writ.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
United States v. Watt held Chimel unavailable for a pre-June 23, 1969 search, applying binding Ninth Circuit nonretroactivity precedent.
United States v. Watt · N.D. Cal. · filed
Recently, however, the Ninth Circuit has been presented with the question and has decided that Chimel does not apply to searches conducted before June 23, 1969, the date of the Chimel decision. Heffley v. Hocker, 420 F.2d 881 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 1969); Williams v. United States, 418 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 1969). ... This holding does of course bind this court in ,the present matter. The search in question here was conducted on June 4, 1969. Consequently, the Chimel decision is inapplicable and we must turn to other sources against which to measure the legality of the present search.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Thornton held Chimel nonretroactive and therefore unavailable to challenge the pre-Chimel search.
Thornton v. State · Texas Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
In Lyon v. United States, 416 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1969), the Court also held that Chimel was not retroactive. We agree that Chimel is not retroactive and is not applicable in the present case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Redding applied the prevailing prospective-only rule and judged the pre-Chimel search under prior law.
Redding v. State · Supreme Court of Missouri · filed
Assuming here that the search of appellant’s apartment exceeded the permissible limits of the Chimel case, yet that case cannot control. The search here occurred on December 13, 1960. The Chimel case was decided June 23, 1969. It has not been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be retroactive in its effect. Recent federal cases in discussing the retro-activity of the Chimel case have ruled that it is prospective only in application. ... The legality of the search of appellant’s apartment is thus to be measured by the law existing prior to the Chimel case, as fully discussed in the original opinion (357 S.W.2d 107 [5,6]), and ruled against appellant.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
DeLeo expressly declined to extend Chimel to a delayed search of an arrestee at the first place of detention.
United States v. Ralph F. Deleo · First Circuit · filed
We are disinclined to read Chimel as teaching new doctrine on the subject of search of an accused shortly after his arrest at the first place of detention; the rationale of Chimel does not require its extension to cases like that at bar, for the evil sought to be rooted out is not present.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
De La Cruz Bellinger held that defendants could not invoke Chimel against a search conducted before Chimel was decided.
United States v. Xavier De La Cruz Bellinger, United States of America v. Jacqueline Cynthia Holley · Ninth Circuit · filed
However, since this search occurred on July 27, 1968, appellants cannot claim the benefits of Chimel because that case applies only to searches conducted after June 23, 1969, the date of its decision.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Schartner independently held Chimel nonretroactive and admitted evidence from a pre-Chimel search.
United States v. August Edward Schartner, Jr. · Third Circuit · filed
While the search at Schartner’s cabin might have rendered the evidence seized therein inadmissible under Chimel, we conclude that Chimel does not apply in cases where the evidence complained of was gained from a search prior to the date of the decision in Chimel. We conclude that Chimel is not to be applied retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Rice applied California Supreme Court nonretroactivity precedent and declined to evaluate a pre-Chimel search under Chimel.
People v. Rice · California Court of Appeal · filed
It is unnecessary to consider whether the search in the present case was in violation of Chimel v. California, supra, 395 U.S. 752, since the search was conducted prior to the decision in that case. (People v. Edwards, 71 Cal.2d 1096 [80 Cal.Rptr. 633, 458 P.2d 713].)
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Kirkpatrick expressly held Chimel prospective only.
Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth · Supreme Court of Virginia · filed
However, we further conclude that Chimel should apply only prospectively, and to searches conducted after June 23, 1969, the date of the decision.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
State v. Jones adopted DeLeo’s refusal to extend Chimel to a later, more thorough search of the arrestee at police headquarters and rejected the defendant’s challenge.
State v. Jones · North Carolina Court of Appeals · filed
Appellant asserts that Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 limits the scope of a search of a prisoner at police headquarters. That question was considered in January of 1970 by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. DeLeo, 422 F. 2d 487 (1st Cir. 1970), cert. den. 397 U.S. 1037, 90 S. Ct. 1355, 25 L. Ed. 2d 648. ... The Court considered the line of cases (specifically including Charles v. United States, supra) holding that a second search at police headquarters is valid, and concluded: “We disagree that Chimel v. California, supra, has overruled these cases. We are disinclined to read Chimel as teaching new doctrine on the subject of search of an accused shortly after his arrest at the first place of detention; the rationale of Chimel does not require its extension to cases like that at bar, for the evil sought to be rooted out is not present.” ... Appellant’s assignment of error with respect to the denial of his motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of the State’s evidence is without merit.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Norris independently held that Chimel should not apply retrospectively.
State v. Norris · Supreme Court of Missouri · filed
We will not discuss that case because we do not consider it applicable to this decision. This, for the reason that it has not been held that Chimel should be applied restrospectively, and, in our judgment, it should not be so applied.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Herbert expressly held Chimel prospective only and refused to apply it to the earlier search.
People v. Herbert · Illinois Appellate Court · filed
The search about which defendant complains occurred before June 23, 1969 when Chimel was decided. Therefore, Chimel does not apply. It has only prospective application.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Neal applied the nonretroactivity rule and evaluated the earlier search under prior authority.
Neal v. State · Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
The rule of Chimel “is not retroactive even as to cases still in the process ... of direct review.” Lyon v. United States, 416 F.2d 91 (Fifth Circuit 1969); United States v. Bennett, 415 F.2d 1113 (Second Circuit 1969); Williams v. United States, 418 F.2d 159 (Ninth Circuit 1969); People v. Edwards, 80 Cal.Rptr. 633, 458 P.2d 713. Since Chimel is not to be applied retroactively, Mahoney was authority at the time of trial for the court’s ruilng, so far as the physical scope of the search was concerned.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Rodriguez applied Ninth Circuit nonretroactivity precedent and used pre-Chimel standards for a pre-decision search.
United States v. David Valdez Rodriguez · Ninth Circuit · filed
As for the seizure of the vial of amphetamine tablets from the kitchen cabinet, pre-Chimel standards must be applied since the search and seizure occurred prior to June 23, 1969, the date of decision in Chimel.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Williams definitively held Chimel nonretroactive for searches conducted before Chimel was announced.
Williams v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
However, we reaffirm our ... recent decisions in like situations: Chimel is not retroactive and is not applicable to searches conducted prior to the decision in that case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Cozzetti applied the circuit’s prospective-only rule and held Chimel inapplicable to the February 1969 search.
United States v. Cozzetti · Ninth Circuit · filed
Although the Government concedes that the search violated the standards of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) for searches incident to arrests, this court has decided that Chimel is applicable only to searches conducted after the date of decision in the case, June 23, 1969, and is thus inapplicable to this search conducted on February 6, 1969.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Gelfuso applied Williams and judged the pre-Chimel search under earlier standards.
People v. Gelfuso · California Court of Appeal · filed
Contrary to appellant’s variously phrased arguments herein, it is equally clear that judged by the standards applicable prior to Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 [23 L.Ed.2d 685, 89 S.Ct. 2034], as required by Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646 [28 L.Ed.2d 388, 91 S.Ct. 1148], and Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 [28 L.Ed.2d 484, 91 S.Ct. 1106], both decided April 5, 1971, and People v. Edwards, 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1107 et seq. [80 Cal.Rptr. 633, 458 P.2d 713], the search conducted herein was entirely proper.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Medina applied Williams and held Chimel’s search-scope limit unavailable for a pre-decision search.
People v. Medina · Supreme Court of California · filed
Because the challenged search and seizure were made before the decision of Chimel v. California (June 23, 1969) 395 U.S. 752, 763 [23 L.Ed.2d 685, 694, 89 S.Ct. 2034], defendant recognizes that Chimel’s limitation of the scope of a search which can be justified as incidental to a lawful arrest ... does not apply here. ... The search which defendant challenges met the requirements of Cruz.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Marigny applied Williams and used pre-Chimel standards for the 1967 search.
People v. Marigny · Supreme Court of Illinois · filed
The issue of the validity of searches carried on prior to June 23, 1969, the date of the Chimel decision, was presented in Williams v. United States (1971), 401 U.S. 646, 28 L.Ed.2d 388, 91 S.Ct. 1148, and the court held that Chimel did not apply retroactively to searches conducted prior to this decision. The validity of these searches was to be judged by the constitutional standards in effect at the time that the searches were conducted. ... It is evident that Coolidge and Williams are additional authorities for our application of the “reasonableness” test of Rabinowitz to the search conducted in the present case on March 27, 1967.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Novak applied Williams and held Chimel unavailable to disturb a conviction based on a pre-Chimel search.
Novak v. State · Supreme Court of Missouri · filed
However Chimel v. California “is not retroactive and is not applicable to searches conducted prior to the decision in that case [June 23, 1969].” Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 651, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 1151, 28 L.Ed.2d 388. As a consequence, even if it be assumed that Chimel v. California overruled United States v. Rabinowitz as applied in State v. Novak, such rule would not now entitle movant to relief because State v. Novak preceded Chimel v. California by more than a year.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Griffin applied Williams and evaluated the pre-Chimel arrest and search under prior standards.
Robert Griffin v. W. E. Hudson · Sixth Circuit · filed
Inasmuch as this arrest and search occurred prior to the decision of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), the constitutionality of the search is to be judged under the standards in effect prior to that decision. Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Teague applied Williams’s nonretroactivity holding and upheld the earlier searches under pre-Chimel law.
People v. Teague · Illinois Appellate Court · filed
In the instant case neither the closet nor the automobile trunk could be considered as areas within defendant’s immediate control so that under Chimel, in the absence of consent, the searches would have been unreasonable. The Supreme Court, however, in Williams v. United States (1971), 401 U.S. 646, held that the principle expressed in Chimel was not retroactive. ... Here, there is no contention by defendant that his arrest was without probable cause and it would appear that under the pre Chimel rule, as expressed in Harris, Rabinowitz, Williams, and Elkanich, the searches and seizures were lawful.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Parker applied Williams and rejected retroactive use of Chimel against searches preceding the decision.
Kenneth E. Parker and Henry L. Emmitt v. State of Oklahoma And/or Park J. Anderson, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary · Tenth Circuit · filed
Appellants strenuously argued that the rule in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 decided June 23, 1969, which considerably narrowed the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest, should be applied retroactively. Chimel is not applicable to searches conducted prior to that decision. Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Richardson applied Williams and held pre-June 23, 1969 searches governed by pre-Chimel law.
Richardson v. State of Maryland · D. Md. · filed
The Chimel standard, however, is not to be applied retroactively. Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 651, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971); Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 802, 91 S.Ct. 1106, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971). This is true whether the conviction involving a particular search and seizure is on direct appeal, or is being collaterally attacked. ... Thus, all searches and seizures conducted prior to the date Chimel was handed down (June 23, 1969) are governed by pr e-Chimel law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The New York Court of Appeals criticized the “grabbable reach” concept attributed to Chimel as unreasonably simplistic while holding that exigent circumstances justified a specifically directed search beyond Chimel’s immediate-control area.
People v. Clements · New York Court of Appeals · filed
They have not held themselves bound by the ... unreasonably simplistic concept of "grabbable reach” attributed to Chimel (supra).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Chimel v. California and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace