Yahoo Web Search

Why don't you read the case and find out? I find it hard to believe you read this case and don't know the answer. Sounds like you want someone to do your assignment for you. Just look at the holding and put 2 n 2 together.

Chimel had two holdings -- 1) incident to an arrest, a police officer may search...search anywhere not under the suspect's immediate control. What's new in Chimel is the idea that a warrantless search conducted incident to...

You can find it in LOTS of places with a simple Google search, but you have to spell it correctly to do so. Chimel v. California

... http://helix-web.stanford.edu/people/alain/frash/343US747.html Chimel v. California http://www.answers.com/topic/chimel-v-california Escobedo v. ...

Plenty. Mapp v. Ohio (1961); Chimel v. California (1969); and Segura v. United States (1984) are just a...

... and tested them to be morphine." "Rochin v. California" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochin_v._California

...case would not affect you. You would still be subject to search incident to arrest (Chimel v. California) and (Carroll v. US). If, however, you weren't anywhere near...

1 . terry v. Ohio - stop and frisk 2. Miranda v. Arizona - warning given to person I wouldn't recommend law school if this is tripping you up. Wikipedia and read the rest.