“ A quantity of heroin was discovered and seized in the course of a search incident to the arrest. The trial court sustained the search and the heroin was introduced in evidence. Williams was convicted and sentenced to a 10-year prison term. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Williams v. United States, 418 F.2d 159 (CA9 1969) . That court held: (1) that our intervening decision in Chimel v. California, supra, was not retroactive and did not govern searches carried out prior to June 23, 1969, the date of that decision ”

“ Thus the Court, when it came to consider the retroactivity of Mapp and Katz, was dealing with cases quite different from those situations where emerging constitutional doctrine casts such doubt upon the soundness of some aspect of prior trials that State and Federal Governments were disentitled from further pursuing the goals of their criminal law against defendants convicted in such prior trials. ”

“ The former is not explained at all except by repeated assertions that cases here on direct review are different. [9] But we have no authority to upset criminal convictions at will. Does the Constitution compel us to apply Chimel retroactively and set aside Williams' conviction when he was convicted on sound evidence secured in conformity with the then-applicable constitutional law as announced by this Court? As we have said, we think not-no more so than it compels applying the teachings of Chimel in reviewing the denial of Elkanich's petition for collateral relief. ”

“ Both Harris and Rabinowitz, however, were disapproved by Chimel. That case considerably narrowed the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest, and petitioners argue that the searches carried out in these cases, if judged by Chimel standards, were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the evidence seized inadmissible at trial. [2] However, we reaffirm our recent decisions in like situations: Chimel is not retroactive and is not applicable to searches conducted prior to the decision in that case. ”

“ It is urged that the prevailing approach to retroactivity involves confusing problems of identifying those 'new' constitutional interpretations that so change the law that prospectivity is arguably the proper course. But we have no such problems in these cases since to reach the result it did the Court in Chimel found it necessary to disapprove Harris and Rabinowitz and under those cases the search in Chimel and the searches now before us would ahve been deemed reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. ”

“ Neither good-faith reliance by state or federal authorities on prior constitutional law or accepted practice, nor severe impact on the administration of justice has sufficed to require prospective application in these circumstances. ”

“ And the Chimel rule will receive sufficient implementation by applying it to those cases involving the admissibility of evidence seized in searches occurring after Chimel was announced on June 23, 1969, and carried out by authorities who through mistake or ignorance have violated the precepts of that decision. ”

“ Williams v. United States (401 U.S. 646)
Argued: Oct. 21, 1970. --- Decided: April 5, 1971
(a) Where the major purpose of a new constitutional standard is not to overcome an aspect of a criminal trial that substantially impairs the truth-finding function and thus raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials, the new rule does not require retrospective application. P. 653.
(b) The Constitution does not require that pre-Chimel searches be measured by the new Chimel standards, Desist v. ”