United States v. Rabinowitz 339 U.S.

56 (1950)
DOCTRINE
Warrantless searches immediately following an arrest is constitutional.
CASE BRIEF
The decision overturned Trupiano v. United States (1948), which had banned such searches.
Albert J. Rabinowitz was arrested in his office on February 16, 1943, for selling forged US postage stamps to an undercover federal officer.
Federal agents then conducted a warrantless, ninety-minute search of the office, finding an additional 573 forged stamps. Court voted 5-3
convicting Rabinowitz. Writing for the majority, Justice Sherman Minton wrote that only "unreasonable" searches were banned under the
Fourth Amendment; searching the office of a suspected forger at the site of his lawful arrest was held to be reasonable.
FACTS:
On February 1, 1943, a printer who possessed plates for forging "overprints" on canceled stamps was taken into custody.
He disclosed that respondent, a dealer in stamps, was one of the customers to whom he had delivered large numbers of stamps
bearing forged overprints.
On February 6, 1943, a postal employee was sent to respondent's place of business to buy stamps bearing overprints and the experts
confirmed that the said stamps were forgeries.
Later, a warrant for the arrest of respondent was obtained.
Armed with this valid warrant for arrest, the Government officers, accompanied by two stamp experts, went to respondent's place of
business, a one-room office open to the public.
The officers thereupon arrested the respondent, and over his objection searched the desk, safe, and file cabinets in the office for
about an hour and a half. They found and seized 573 stamps, on which it was later determined that overprints had been forged,
along with some other stamps which were subsequently returned to respondent.
He was convicted, but a US Court of Appeals later reversed the verdict, ruling that his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution had been violated.
ISSUE
The question presented here is the reasonableness of a search without a search warrant of a place of business consisting of
a one-room office, incident to a valid arrest.
HELD:
Search is VALID.
RATIO
The Fourth Amendment provides:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. It is unreasonable searches that are prohibited by the Fourth
Amendment."
The Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. The search may be of the person arrested and of the
premises where the arrest occurs. A search without warrant incident to an arrest is dependent initially on a valid arrest.

Thus in Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30, this Court stated:
"The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search persons lawfully arrested while committing crime and to search the place
where the arrest is made in order to find and
seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed, as well as weapons and other things to effect
an escape from custody, is not to be doubted."
The right stemmed not only from the acknowledged authority to search the person, but also from the long-standing practice of searching
for other proofs of guilt within the control of the accused found upon arrest.
The mandate of the Fourth Amendment is that the people shall be secure against unreasonable searches. It is not
disputed that there may be reasonable searches, incident to an arrest, without a search warrant.
DISSENTING
MR. JUSTICE BLACK
The present case comes within that rule: the trial court admitted certain evidence procured by a search and seizure without a search
warrant although the officers had ample time and opportunity to get one.