Facts of the case The defendant, Chimel had a warrant for his arrest for burglary and was arrested at his home. Police asked him for consent to search the home and he said no, after being told no the police still went through with conducting a warrantless search. The police searched throughout his house, rooms and made his wife open up dresser drawers for the search. The search eventually uncovered a number of items that were tied to the burglary charges against him. The items found were later used to convict Chimel. The state court upheld the conviction of Chimel.
Issues The issue of the case and what is being argued is weather the warrantless search of Chimel's home is constitutionally justified under
