Search Incident to Arrest

What It Is

When police make a lawful arrest, the Fourth Amendment allows them to search the arrested person and the area within their immediate reach — without a warrant. This is called a “search incident to arrest” (sometimes abbreviated SITA).

The justification is twofold: officer safety (removing weapons) and preventing destruction of evidence.

The Basic Rule

Under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), officers may search:

1. The arrestee’s person — pockets, clothing, anything they’re carrying
2. The area within the arrestee’s immediate control — the “grab area” where they could reach a weapon or destroy evidence

They may not use the arrest as an excuse to search the entire house, car trunk, or other areas beyond the person’s reach.

Cell Phones Are Different

In Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), the Supreme Court unanimously held that officers cannot search a cell phone incident to arrest without a warrant. The Court recognized that modern smartphones contain vast amounts of private information — far beyond what a physical search of pockets would reveal. If police searched your phone without a warrant after arresting you, that search likely violated the Fourth Amendment.

Vehicle Searches After Arrest

The rules for cars narrowed significantly in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). Officers may search a vehicle incident to arrest only if:

• The arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment, OR
• It is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the crime of arrest

If you were already handcuffed and locked in the patrol car, officers generally cannot search your vehicle under this exception.

Why It Matters in § 1983 Cases

If the underlying arrest was unlawful (false arrest), any search incident to that arrest is also unlawful. Additionally, even after a valid arrest, officers who exceed the allowed scope — searching areas out of reach, going through your phone, or rifling through your car after you’re secured — may have violated your Fourth Amendment rights.

Common issues include:

• No lawful arrest — If there was no probable cause for the arrest, the search falls too
• Exceeded scope — Searched rooms, vehicles, or containers beyond your immediate reach
• Cell phone search without warrant — Almost always unconstitutional after Riley

Key Cases

• Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) — Defined the “grab area” rule
• Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) — Warrant required for cell phone searches
• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) — Limited vehicle searches after arrest
• United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) — Full search of person is allowed after custodial arrest