SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

process or during a lawful search incident to arrest.)
(People v. Davis (2000) 84 Cal.App.4 th 390; United
States v. Holzman (9 th Cir. 1989) 871 F.2 nd 1496,
1505; United States v. Thompson (5 th Cir. 1988)
837 F.2 nd 673, 675; United States v. Johnson (9 th
Cir. 1987) 820 F.2 nd 1065, 1071-1072.)
Property which is evidence of a crime may be taken
from the person of the defendant without a warrant,
even hours after booking, for the purpose of
examination and testing. (United States v. Edwards
(1974) 415 U.S. 800, 806 [39 L.Ed.2 nd 771, 777];
defendant’s clothing, worn at the time of the
booking, taken from him ten hours later, after
replacement clothing was purchased for him.)
Note, however, the Supreme Court refused
to “conclude that the Warrant Clause of the
Fourth Amendment is never applicable to
post-arrest seizures of the effects of an
arrestee. [fn. Omitted]” (Id., at p. 808 [39
L.Ed.2 nd at p. 778].)
Recovery of a ring from defendant’s booked
property, contained in, and readily visible through, a
transparent property bag, without the need to search
any containers, was lawfully seized from
defendant’s property without the need for a warrant.
(People v. Superior Court [Gunn] (1980) 112
Cal.App.3 rd 970.)
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
Note, however, the Court’s discussion
indicating that the right to search property
without a warrant may even be broader:
“Once articles have lawfully fallen into the
hands of the police they may examine them
to see if they have been stolen, test them to
see if they have been used in the
commission of a crime, return them to the
prisoner on his release, or preserve them for
use as evidence at the time of trial.
[Citation] During their period of police
custody an arrested person’s personal
effects, like his person itself, are subject to
reasonable inspection, examination, and test.
[Citation] Whatever segregation the police
470