Court Opinion

ID: 9741150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:50:21.028821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.548178
License: Public Domain

*149Concurring Opinion
Staton, J.
I concur in result for the reason that State’s Exhibit No. 1 was received in evidence without objection. No error was preserved regarding its admissibility. Chimel v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 752, 80 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 does not support the proposition that a warrantless search at the police station after arrest can be made. The search in the present case was not contemporaneous with the arrest. In Preston v. United States (1964), 376 U.S. 364, 84 S. Ct. 881, 11 L. Ed. 2d 777, the United States Supreme Court expressly held that “Once an accused is under arrest and in custody, then a search made at another place, without warrant, is simply not incident to the arrest.” Preston, supra, 376 U.S. at 367. The warrantless search does not appear to have been initiated for any other reasons than custody. Brett v. United States (5th Cir. 1969), 412 F. 2d 401. No question has been raised regarding the defendant’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Note. — Reported in 286 N. E. 2d 219.