James v. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36 (1965). · Go Syfert
Search
James v. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36 (1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1972 · 2 courts · …a search 'can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest. at p. 37 ✓
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1969 · …cannot be regarded as incident to his arrest. ✓
257 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 40 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Smollar (nysd, 1972-11-08) · Strongest negative: Chimel v. California (scotus, 1969-06-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" Chimel v. California (4×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
SCOTUS · 1969 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see James v. Louisiana, 382 U. S. 36 ( per curiam ). [11] Cf. Mr. Justice Jackson's dissenting comment in Harris : "The difficulty with this problem for me is that once the search is allowed to go beyond the person arrested and the objects upon him or in his immediate physical control, I see no practical limit short of that set in the opinion of the Court—and that means to me no limit at all." 331 U. S., at 197 . [12] It is argued in dissent that so long as there is probable cause to search the place where an arrest occurs, a search of that place should be permitted even though no search…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Smollar
S.D.N.Y. · 1972 · confidence medium
The Court declared that “[a] search ‘can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.’ ” Id. at 37 , 86 S.Ct. at 151.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Caughlin v. Superior Court (4×)
Cal. · 1971 · confidence medium
On the contrary, the court has consistently utilized one common test—“immediate vicinity”—in evaluating all incidental searches of automobiles (Preston v. United States (1964) 376 U.S. 364, 367-368 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 777, 780-781 , 84 S.Ct. 881 ]; Dyke v. Taylor Implement Co. (1968) 391 U.S. 216, 220 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 538, 542 , 88 S.Ct. 1472 ]) and residences (e.g., James v. Louisiana (1965) 382 U.S. 36, 37 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 30, 31 , 86 S.Ct. 151 ]) alike.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vale v. Louisiana
SCOTUS · 1970 · confidence medium
Shipley v. California, supra, at 819; James v. Louisiana, supra, at 37; Ker v. California, supra, at 30-34; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pompei
Cal. Ct. App. · 1968 · confidence medium
A search can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest (James v. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36, 37 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 30, 31 , 86 S.Ct. 151 ]; Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 486 [ 11 L.Ed.2d 856, 859 , 84 S.Ct. 889 ]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pueblo v. Riscard
prsupreme · 1967 · confidence medium
James v. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36, 37 (1965); Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964) y autoridades allí citadas; Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 486 (1964); Pueblo v. Miranda, 79 D.P.R. 132, 134 (1956) y autoridades allí citadas; Murray v. United States, 351 F.2d 330, 334 (1965).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Luis Riscard
prsupreme · 1967 · confidence medium
James v. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36, 37 (1965); Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964) and cases cited therein; Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 486 (1964); People v. Miranda, 79 P.R.R. 125 , 128 (1956) and' cases cited therein; Murray v. United States, 351 F.2d 330, 334 (1965).
examined Cited "see" State v. Fernon (3×)
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See James v. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36, 37 , 86 S.Ct. 151 , 15 L.Ed.2d 30 (1965) (holding that a search of a petitioner’s home after his arrest on the street two blocks away “cannot be regarded as incident to arrest”). *51 Some twelve years later, in Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 , the Supreme Court considered the application of Chimel to a search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, conducted incident to the arrest of the driver and three passengers.
examined Cited "see" State v. Richmond (3×)
La. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. James, 246 La. 1033 , 169 So.2d 89, 112 (1964) reversed on other grounds, 382 U.S. 36 , 86 S.Ct. 151 , 15 L.
examined Cited "see" United States v. Kenneth Alvin Robbins (6×)
6th Cir. · 1970 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, James v. Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36, 37 , 86 S.Ct. 151 , 15 L.Ed.2d 30 (1965).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Garcia-Sarquiz (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See, James v. State of Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36 , 86 S.Ct. 151 , 15 L.Ed.2d 30 (1965) (per curiam); Jones v. United States, supra; 5 Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 , 77 S.Ct. 828 , 1 L.Ed.2d 876 (1957) (per curiam). 6 See also, Agnello v. United States, supra. 7 In James , the petitioner had been arrested several blocks from his residence, yet the police officers drove him home, broke open the door, and conducted an extensive search.
examined Cited "see" People v. Henry (3×)
Cal. · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
A search is not incident to an arrest unless, among other things, “it is limited to the premises where the arrest is made.” (People v. Cruz, supra, 61 Cal.2d 861, 865-866 ; People v. Delaney, 239 Cal.App.2d 122, 123-124 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 408 ]; Hernandez v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.2d 20, 23 [ 299 P.2d 678 ]; see Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) §§ 119, 120, pp. 120-122.) The United States Supreme Court has similarly declared that a search can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and “is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest…
examined Cited "see" People v. Henry (6×)
Cal. · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
And such searches are ... unlawful notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause.' Id., 269 U.S. at page 33 [ 70 L.Ed. at p. 149 , 46 S.Ct. at p. 6 , 51 A.L.R. at p. 414 ]." (See also People v. Burke, 61 Cal.2d 575, 579 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 531 , 394 P.2d 67 ]; People v. Shelton, 60 Cal.2d 740, 744 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 433 , 388 P.2d 665 ]; People v. Edgar, 60 Cal.2d 171, 175 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 41 , 383 P.2d 449 ].) [3a] Irrespective of whether there was probable cause for the arrest, the search cannot be justified as incident thereto since the arrest was made on the sidewalk several feet from t…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Phillips
Ohio · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
Vital, however, to the legality of a warrantless search incident to an arrest is the validity of the arrest (Rabinowitz, supra, at 64 ), and the proximity of the area searched to the place where the arrest was made; See, also, James v. Louisiana (1965), 382 U. S. 36 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Ralph Leroy Klingler v. United States (3×)
8th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, James v. State of Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36 , 86 S.Ct. 151 , 15 L.Ed.2d 30 (1965). 27 We hold that the seizure of Klingler's firearm was the result of a reasonable search incident to the lawful arrest.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Klingler v. United States (3×)
8th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, James v. State of Louisiana, 382 U.S. 36 , 86 S.Ct. 151 , 15 L.Ed.2d 30 (1965) .
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Cruz (3×)
W.D. Tex. · 1967 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, James v. State of Louisiana (1965), 382 U.S. 36 , 86 S.Ct. 151 , 15 L.Ed.2d 30 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James
v.
Louisiana
23 M.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 25, 1965.
382 U.S. 36
1965 U.S. LEXIS 450
G. Wray Gill, Sr., for petitioner., Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of Louisiana, M. E. Culligan, Assistant Attorney General, and Jim Garrison for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 99 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The petitioner was convicted by a Louisiana jury of possession of narcotics and was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years. The Supreme Court of Louisiana set aside the conviction on the ground that it was based upon evidence seized without a warrant during an illegal search. 246 La. 1033, 169 So. 2d 89. Upon rehearing, however, that court affirmed the conviction by a divided vote. 246 La. 1053, 169 So. 2d 97. We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment.

Police officers arrested the petitioner near the intersection of Camp Street and Jackson Avenue in the City of New Orleans, after he had alighted from an automobile driven by another man. The officers then drove the petitioner to his home, more than two blocks away.[*37] They broke open the door and for several hours conducted an intensive search which finally yielded the narcotics equipment and single morphine tablet that constituted the basis of the petitioner’s subsequent conviction.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana found that the officers had probable cause to arrest the petitioner at the time they apprehended him, and the validity of his arrest is not here in issue. In the circumstances of this case, however, the subsequent search of the petitioner’s home cannot be regarded as incident to his arrest on a street corner more than two blocks away. A search “can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.” Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483, 486. See also Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364.

Under the doctrine of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, see also Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, it was constitutional error to admit the fruits of this illegal search into evidence at the petitioner’s trial. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.