The case reviewed in United States v. Abdul-Saboor, which was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit in 1996. Abdul-Saboor held that the warrantless search of his apartment that yielded weapons and drugs was illegal, since he was hand-cuffed and seated at the time of the search, such that he was no longer in control of the area that was subsequently searched. Both the trial court and the appellate court denied the motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search. A warrantless search or seizure inside a home is presumptively unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; however, there are certain exceptions. One exception involves a search incident to arrest of the area within the subject's immediate control. This is construed to mean the area from within which the subject might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. This exception reflects the potential dangers that accompany all custodial arrests. Although Abdul- Saboor apparently had no control over the area of the search at the time of the search, the court interpreted the exception to apply at the time of the arrest rather than the time of the search; otherwise, officers would be inclined not to secure the subject until the search was completed. If an arrestee has been "immobilized" when a search occurs, so that the area searched is not "conceivably accessible" to the arrestee at the time of the search, then the search is no longer incident to the arrest (United States v. Lyons (1983). Showing that the area searched was "conceivably accessible" at the time of the search was not meant to be difficult, however, according to the court in United States v. Saboor. The discussion of investigative techniques in domestic assault cases addresses the use of photographic evidence of injuries and the crime scene, witness statements, and the use of 911 tapes. Police services to victims are also discussed.