Whether the State must show that an arrestee could access a weapon or destructible evidence from a bag the arrestee was carrying immediately before arrest to justify a search of that bag incident to the arrest

When police make an arrest, they need to know whether they need a warrant to look inside any bags the arrestee might be carrying. Yet right now, the answer is, “It depends.” Courts generally pick one of two tests. Some courts look to Chimel v. California , 395 U.S. 752, 762 (1969), which authorizes a warrantless search “of the arrestee’s person,” as well as the area within the arrestee’s “immediate control,” when justified by concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation. Others look to United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973), which adopts a categorical rule: a lawful custodial arrest authorizes a full search of the arrestee—including any bags the person might be carrying—without any further justification. In this case, police searched a backpack Michael Keith Allman was carrying moments before his arrest. Applying Chimel (and expressly rejecting Robinson ), the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the State had not shown that “the backpack was in an area from within which Mr. Allman might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” App.30a (cleaned up). Thus, the question presented is: Whether the State must show that an arrestee could access a weapon or destructible evidence from a bag the arrestee was carrying immediately before arrest to justify a search of that bag incident to the arrest.