Unreasonable searches continued

This is a continuation from yesterdays thoughts on search incident to arrest and the wingspan idea covered under Chimel v California. One factor considered is likely hood of evidence destruction or exigent circumstances. These are over used by both law enforcement and prosecutors and should always be challenged. There is no compelling justification for law enforcements routinely searching beyond the room where an arrest occurred. nor does law enforcement deserve the unfettered and often unchallenged rationale that the arrested could reach for it. First I would want to discover if the arrested was handcuffed while this search of the room occurred. I am talking about beyond incident to arrest and wingspan such as opening drawers and claiming plain view. Once one is handcuffed, officers safety while important does not trump U. S. constitutional rights, Fourth amendment and Mississippi constitutional protections. Also once the arrested is no longer in room what is the hurry? Get a warrant if you want to open drawers and look under objects much less move them. In almost 100 per cent of the cases the facts of a warrantless search are wrapped with a sloppy fact pattern and. or lazy law enforcement.