Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police officers arresting a person at home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant. The rule on searches incident to a lawful arrest within the home is now known as the Chimel Rule. Ronald M. George, the young Deputy Attorney General who unsuccessfully argued the State of California's position before the high court, ultimately became Chief Justice of the State of California. Background In the court case of Chimel v. California (1969), police officers went into the home of Chimel with a warrant authorizing their arrest of Chimel on counts of burglary from a coin shop. The police officers were let into Chimel's home by his wife where they awaited his return home to serve him with his arrest warrant. Upon receiving his warrant for arrest, "Chimel denied the request of officers to look around" his home for further evidence. Ignoring Chimel, the police officers continued their search of Chimel's home "on the basis of the lawful arrest", and the police even "instructed Chimel's wife to remove items from drawers", where she eventually found coins and metals. Later at Chimel's trial for burglary charges, "items taken from his home were admitted over objection from Chimel that they had been unconstitutionally seized". However, a number of these items including the coins and medals that were taken from his home were used to convict Chimel. The "state courts upheld the conviction" of Chimel, even though he petitioned that the arrest warrant was not a valid warrant, considering that the police officers searched his home and found evidence that they used against him, without having a search warrant for his house. Prior to Chimel, the Court's precedents permitted an arresting officer to search the area within an arrestee's "possession" and "control" for the purpose of gathering evidence. Based on the "abstract doctrine," it had sustained searches that extended far beyond an arrestee's grabbing area. Issue Could the warrantless search of Chimel's entire house be constitutionally justified as incident to his arrest? Decision and significance The Supreme Court ruled 6–2 in favor of Chimel. It held that the search of Chimel's house was unreasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court reasoned that searches