Protection against unreasonable searches in home and hotel,

In my criminal practice I often have questions and issues concerning perceived unreasonable searches of cars, hotel rooms, and personal carry items(tote bags). While the law is very clear, the facts of each search situation is what ultimately affords the constitutional protections. We all remember the television series Adam -12. It was produced by Jack Webb and was an made to be an operational show about Los Angeles Police Department in the 1960s-1970s. The character I have focused on is Sgt. McDonald. He was the supervisor for the patrol units and helped them answer many search questions. If Sgt. Macdonald said the search was in a gray area, it meant that a Judge would determine the outcome of valid search or not. The first place I begin my inquiry is was this a search incident to arrest or something else. Absent unusual and special circumstances most searches incident to arrest may be lawful under Mississippi and United States decisions. However, the inquiry does not end there. Chimmel v California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) has been undisturbed authority concerning warrantless searches incident to lawful arrest and protection generally extends to the area considered to be in possession or immediate control of the person arrested. This limits search incident to arrest to what is often referred to as wingspan of the arrested. Nevertheless, hotels are a different situation and it may be a matter of timing and prepayment of room bill and expenses to gain full protection from warrantless searches. The immediate take away is the facts will determine if the search was valid or required a warrant. Do understand that the officer is going to follow his trained procedures (right or wrong) at the time of arrest and challenging him or her with law often ensures the search will occur just to show you they can do it. More to come another day