IN CHIMEL V. CALIFORNIA, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT AN INCIDENT SEARCH MUST BE LIMITED TO THE AREA WITHIN THE REACH OF THE ARRESTEE. THIS HOLDING GREATLY RESTRICTED THE SCOPE OF EXCEPTIONS TO LIMITATIONS ON INCIDENT SEARCHES, AND REDUCED THE TEMPTATION FOR POLICE OF MAKING SEARCHES THAT OTHERWISE WOULD LACK PROBABLE CAUSE. THE CHIMEL DOCTRINE WOULD SEEM TO AFFORD ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR POTENTIAL SUBJECTS OF WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, BUT STATE AND LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE INTERPRETED THE DOCTRINE TO AUTHORIZE POLICE BEHAVIOR THAT ARGUABLY IS MORE INTRUSIVE THAN WAS INTENDED BY THE SUPREME COURT. SOME COURTS HAVE OVERTLY LIMITED THE CHIMEL RULE, WHILE OTHERS HAVE EXTENDED THE DOCTRINES OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND PLAIN VIEW IN AN EFFORT TO ESCAPE THE FORCE OF THE RULE. THIS AVOIDANCE SUGGESTS THE NEED FOR MORE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES. A PROCEDURAL RULE FOR SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARRESTS IN RESIDENCE, DESIGNED TO CHECK ABUSES OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND TO PROVIDE COURTS WITH RATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR JUDGING CHALLENGED POLICE CONDUCT, IS PROPOSED. THE PROPOSAL, WHICH DETAILS PROCEDURES FOR HANDCUFFING AND BODY-FRISKING SUSPECTS WHILE REFRAINING FROM ANY FURTHER SEARCH OF THE PREMISES, BOTH PROVIDES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS AND OF EASILY DESTROYED EVIDENCE, AND ELIMINATES THE POSSIBILITY OF UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXTENSIVE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)