The following excerpt is from U.S. v. MacKay, 606 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1979):
5 Because MacKay was arrested in close proximity to the vehicle and prior to the search, the argument could have been advanced that the search was permissible because it was incident to the arrest, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). Nevertheless, the argument would not have had any merit, because the suitcase was not in the "immediate control" of MacKay at the time of the search.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.