Search Incident to Arrest
What does "Search Incident to Arrest" mean in law?
A search incident to arrest is a warrant exception permitting officers to search an arrestee's person and the area within the arrestee's immediate control (the 'wingspan' or 'grab area') contemporaneous with a lawful custodial arrest, as established in Chimel v. California (1969). The justifications are officer safety and preventing the destruction of evidence. In Arizona v. Gant (2009), the Supreme Court narrowed this exception for vehicle searches, holding that officers may search a vehicle incident to arrest only if the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, or if it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle. For cell phones, Riley v. California (2014) held that a warrant is generally required before searching digital contents incident to arrest due to the vast quantity of private information stored on modern devices.
Definition
A search incident to arrest is a warrant exception permitting officers to search an arrestee's person and the area within the arrestee's immediate control (the 'wingspan' or 'grab area') contemporaneous with a lawful custodial arrest, as established in Chimel v. California (1969). The justifications are officer safety and preventing the destruction of evidence. In Arizona v. Gant (2009), the Supreme Court narrowed this exception for vehicle searches, holding that officers may search a vehicle incident to arrest only if the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, or if it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle. For cell phones, Riley v. California (2014) held that a warrant is generally required before searching digital contents incident to arrest due to the vast quantity of private information stored on modern devices.
Example
After lawfully arresting a driver for driving on a suspended license and handcuffing him in the patrol car, officers searched his vehicle and found cocaine in a jacket pocket, but the court suppressed the evidence under Gant because the arrestee posed no safety threat and the crime of arrest (a traffic offense) made it unreasonable to believe evidence of that offense would be found in the car.