Using the model provided (Hart's Theory Applied: Miranda v. Arizona) and your knowledge of H.L.A. Hart's theory of law, explain the events of the Chimel case by noting how primary and secondary rules explain the operation of the law.

Chimel v. California (1969)

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but there are a number of clauses and exceptions that go into defining reasonable search, leading to an interesting patchwork of precedents depending upon the specifics of the case.

One area of interest is the search incident to a lawful arrest. Some such searches certainly seem to be reasonable--an arresting officer has a reasonable personal interest in making sure that a person who is being arrested is not (e.g.) carrying a loaded weapon. But without restrictions, a rule that permitted searches incident to arrest would certainly lead to abuses of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of privacy.

On September 13, 1965, police officers arrested Ted Chimel at his home in Santa Ana, California for burglary of a coin shop. The officers presented the arrest warrant and asked permission to "look around." Chimel objected, but was advised that the officers would nonetheless perform a warrantless search "on the basis of the lawful arrest." The officers proceeded to search the entire three-bedroom house and seized a number of coins, medals, etc. that were entered as evidence against Chimel, who was convicted. Chimel challenged the conviction on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure had been violated by the warrantless search.

Instructions

Below I provide a short timeline of the events of the Chimelcase. Your task is to provide answers for the highlighted questions, showing how H.L.A. Hart's theory would explain the operation of the law.

Here is a timeline of events:

• • Ted Chimel burglarized a coin shop.
    • • (How is this action related to primary or secondary rules? If it is related to secondary rules, which category of secondary rules?)
  • Law enforcement obtained an arrest warrant for Ted Chimel.
    • • (How is this action related to primary or secondary rules? If it is related to secondary rules, which category of secondary rules?)
  • Law enforcement officers arrested Ted Chimel at his home in Santa Ana.
    • • (How is this action related to primary or secondary rules? If it is related to secondary rules, which category of secondary rules?)
  • Incident to the lawful arrest, law enforcement officers searched Chimel's entire home and seized stolen coins found during the search. (Search of the area within the arrestee's control or possession had been previously established as permissible under the Fourth Amendment.)
    • • Law enforcement officers searched in accordance with (their understanding of) the secondary rules of adjudication regarding enforcement.
  • Evidence seized by officers was used against Chimel in his criminal trial. Chimel was convicted of the burglary.
    • • (How is this action related to primary or secondary rules? If it is related to secondary rules, which category of secondary rules?)
  • Chimel and his lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
    • • (How is this action related to primary or secondary rules? If it is related to secondary rules, which category of secondary rules?)
  • The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
    • • (How is this action related to primary or secondary rules? If it is related to secondary rules, which category of secondary rules?)
  • The Court ruled that the search had violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and established the Chimel Rule to clarify the limits of searches incident to a lawful arrest.
    • • (How is this action related to primary or secondary rules? If it is related to secondary rules, which category of secondary rules?)