A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAW, EMPHASIZED FREQUENTLY IN DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, IS THAT POLICE MUST OBTAIN ADVANCE JUDICIAL APPROVAL FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES THROUGH THE WARRANT PROCEDURE WHENEVER PRACTICABLE. ALTHOUGH ADHERENCE TO THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN STRICTLY ENFORCED, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT A SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST IS A TRADITIONAL EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARRESTS INVOLVES TWO LEVELS OF INTRUSION: ONE IS A SEARCH OF THE ACTUAL PERSON OF THE ARRESTEE AND THE OTHER IS A SEARCH OF POSSESSIONS WITHIN THE AREA OF THE ARRESTEE'S IMMEDIATE CONTROL. IN THE CHADWICK CASE, FEDERAL NARCOTICS AGENTS HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT A FOOTLOCKER THAT HAD ARRIVED BY RAIL IN BOSTON FROM SAN DIEGO, CALIF., CONTAINED MARIHUANA. THEY OBSERVED CHADWICK AND OTHERS REMOVE THE FOOTLOCKER FROM THE TRAIN DEPOT AND PLACE IT IN THE TRUNK OF AN AUTOMOBILE. WHILE THE TRUNK LID WAS STILL OPEN, CHADWICK WAS ARRESTED AND THE FOOTLOCKER AND ITS KEYS WERE SEIZED. THE FOOTLOCKER SUBSEQUENTLY WAS SEARCHED IN THE BOSTON FEDERAL BUILDING, LARGE AMOUNTS OF MARIHUANA WERE FOUND, AND CHADWICK WAS CHARGED IN FEDERAL COURT WITH POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA AND CONSPIRACY. THE DECISION OF A U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE THAT A SEARCH WARRANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED TO OPEN THE FOOTLOCKER WAS SUPPORTED BY THE SUPREME COURT. BECAUSE THE FOOTLOCKER COULD NOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ASSOCIATED WITH CHADWICK'S PERSON, THUS PERMITTING A DELAYED SEARCH, AND BECAUSE THE ARRESTING AGENTS HAD REDUCED IT TO THEIR EXCLUSIVE DOMINION, THUS MAKING IT INACCESSIBLE TO CHADWICK, ITS SEARCH COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED AS BEING INCIDENTAL TO THE ARREST. A MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE OF MARIHUANA CONTAINED IN THE FOOTLOCKER WAS GRANTED. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CHADWICK CASE ARE DISCUSSED, AND OTHER DECISIONS INVOLVING THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CHADWICK CASE ARE NOTED. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)