In the case of Chimel v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers cannot conduct a search of an entire home without a warrant after arresting someone inside their house unless there is immediate danger or evidence could be destroyed. The case arose when Ted Chimel was arrested at his home on suspicion of burglary and law enforcement conducted a thorough search throughout his property, finding stolen items in the process which were later used as evidence against him in court. However, Chimel argued this violated his Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures because they did not have a valid warrant to search beyond where he was immediately arrested - only an arrest warrant for him personally. In 1969, by ruling 7-2 in favor of Chimel's argument, it established what became known as "Chimel's rule" limiting how far police can go while conducting searches related to arrests within homes.

In the dissenting opinion for Chimel v. California, Justice White argued that the majority's decision to limit search incident to arrest was not supported by precedent or practical considerations of law enforcement. He contended that previous cases had allowed searches of an entire premises under control of a person being arrested and this should be upheld. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential harm to police officers if they were restricted from searching areas within immediate reach during an arrest. He also pointed out that limiting such searches could potentially allow criminals to destroy evidence while police obtained a warrant. In his view, the majority’s ruling would unnecessarily hinder effective law enforcement without significantly enhancing privacy protections for individuals.