Search incident to a lawful arrest, commonly known as search incident to arrest (SITA) or the ''Chimel'' rule (from '' Chimel v. California''), is an American legal principle that allows

police The police are Law enforcement organization, a constituted body of Law enforcement officer, people empowered by a State (polity), state with the aim of Law enforcement, enforcing the law and protecting the Public order policing, public order ...

to perform a warrantless search of an

arrest An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody (legal protection or control), usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be question ...

ed person and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control in the interest of officer safety, the prevention of escape or the preservation of

evidence Evidence for a proposition is what supports the proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the proposition is truth, true. The exact definition and role of evidence vary across different fields. In epistemology, evidence is what J ...

. Such searches are exceptions to the usual practice of obtaining a

search warrant A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize Police, law enforcement officers to conduct a Search and seizure, search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to Confiscation, confiscate an ...

pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.

Supreme Court decisions

1940s

*In ''Harris v. United States'' (1947), the

Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all Federal tribunals in the United States, U.S. federal court cases, and over Stat ...

held that a law enforcement officer was permitted to perform a warrantless search during or immediately after a lawful arrest of the arrestee and his or her premises, regardless of the purpose of the arrest.

1950s

*In '' United States v. Rabinowitz'' (1950), the Court narrowed its ruling to searches of the area within the arrestee's "immediate control."

1960s

*In '' Chimel v. California'' (1969), the Court further limited the exception to the arrestee and the area within his or her immediate control "in order to remove any weapons that the rresteemight seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape" and to prevent the "concealment or destruction" of evidence.

1970s

*'' United States v. Robinson'' (1973) – The Court held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment."

1990s

*'' Maryland v. Buie'' (1990) – The Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors a person who poses a danger to those on the scene.

2000s

*'' Arizona v. Gant'' (2009) – The Court ruled that law-enforcement officers may search automobiles following arrest only if the arrestee "could have accessed his car at the time of the search." In other words, if the person arrested could conceivably reach into his car for a weapon, then a search based on officer safety is permitted. Absent these circumstances, the former practice of allowing officers to "search carincident to arrest" is no longer permitted unless the police have reason to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

2010s

* '' Missouri v. McNeely'' (2013) The Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunk-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a ''per se'' exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent. *'' Riley v. California'' (2014) – The Court held that "police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a

cell phone A mobile phone or cell phone is a portable telephone that allows users to make and receive calls over a radio frequency link while moving within a designated telephone service area, unlike fixed-location phones ( landline phones). This radio ...

seized from an individual who has been arrested." In other words, unless an exigent circumstance is present, police may not search an arrestee's cell phone without a warrant. *'' Birchfield v. North Dakota'' (2016) - The Court held that for investigations regarding suspected

driving under the influence Driving under the influence (DUI) is the crime of driving, operating, or being in control of a vehicle while one is impaired from doing so safely by the effect of either alcohol (drug), alcohol (see drunk driving) or some other drug, whether re ...

, warrantless

breathalyzer A breathalyzer or breathalyser (a portmanteau of ''breath'' and ''analyzer/analyser''), also called an alcohol meter, is a device for measuring breath alcohol (drug), alcohol content (BrAC). It is commonly utilized by law enforcement officers ...

tests are permissible under the Fourth Amendment given that the impact on privacy is "slight", while more intrusive blood tests involving piercing the skin are not. The Court stated that "there must be a limit to the consequences to which motorists may be deemed to have consented by virtue of a decision to drive on public roads" under implied-consent laws and "that motorists could be deemed to have consented to only those conditions that are 'reasonable' in that they have a 'nexus' to the privilege of driving".