Court Opinion

ID: 9533213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:29:32.646482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:58.414243
License: Public Domain

ALMON, Judge
(dissenting).
Undoubtedly, this search incident to a lawful arrest would have been illegal under the holding of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685. However, the majority correctly states that the rule in Chimel is not retroactive and consequently does not apply to the search in this case. This means then that United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653, and other United States Supreme Court decisions construing Ra-' binowitz are controlling here. Compared to Chimel the constitutional area under the Rabinowitz standard in which a search incident to a lawful arrest could be made was very broad, ranging to methodical searches of an entire house where an arrest took place. See Chimel, supra, p. 766.
The last word from the United States Supreme Court on its interpretation of Rabinowitz came in Chimel as follows:
“It would be possible, of course, to draw a line between Rabinowitz and Harris on the one hand, and this case on the other. For Rabinowitz involved a single room, and Harris a four-room apartment, while in the case, before us an entire house was searched. But such a distinction would be highly artificial. The rationale that allowed the searches and seizures in Rabinowitz and Harris would allow the searches and seizures in this case. * * * ”
It is my view that this was a permissible search and the cause should be affirmed.