Also known as: destructible · destructibility of remainders
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
The quality of evidence that permits its destruction by an arrestee. This characteristic justifies a warrantless search of the area within the arrestee's immediate control to protect officer safety and preserve evidence.
The quality of evidence that permits its destruction by an arrestee. This characteristic justifies a warrantless search of the area within the arrestee's immediate control to protect officer safety and preserve evidence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The quality of a future interest that permits its destruction through the uncontrolled volition of a person acting solely for personal benefit. This quality excludes the period of potential destruction from the perpetuities measuring period.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The quality of a future interest that permits its destruction through the uncontrolled volition of a person acting solely for personal benefit. This quality excludes the period of potential destruction from the perpetuities measuring period.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Detectives arrested Dana at her office cubicle and handcuffed her between two desks. Her purse sat directly under her chair within easy reach. Officers searched the purse and recovered documents. The search was valid because the purse lay inside the area from which Dana could have reached destructible evidence.
Officers may search the arrestee's person and the area within immediate control from which the arrestee might gain access to a weapon or destructible evidence. Areas beyond that wingspan require a warrant or another exception.
Supporting sources
Once the arrestee is handcuffed and seated, the cabinet lies outside the area of immediate control. The arrestee can no longer reach it to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence, so the justification for a warrantless search disappears.
Supporting sources
Harold created a trust to pay stipends to his descendants who enroll full time at law school. The class could increase indefinitely. Carla received an unrestricted power to terminate all future stipends and take the fund herself. The period of Carla's power is disregarded when measuring the rule against perpetuities because the interests remain destructible at her sole discretion.
A settlor granted a trustee an unrestricted power to revoke a trust benefiting an open class of grandchildren. The grandchildren's interests could be destroyed at any time for the trustee's personal benefit. The time during which the revocation power existed is excluded from the perpetuities period.
An attorney drafted a will creating contingent remainders that might vest beyond lives in being plus twenty-one years. The testator later died and the remainders failed under the rule against perpetuities. The attorney was held liable because the drafting did not account for the absence of any destructibility mechanism that would have saved the interests.
The period during which an interest remains destructible at the uncontrolled volition of a person acting solely for personal benefit is excluded from the perpetuities measuring period. This exclusion assists validity because the holder can collapse the future interests at any moment.
Supporting sources
Many jurisdictions have abolished the doctrine. Where abolished, a contingent remainder is not automatically destroyed if it fails to vest before or at the termination of the preceding estate.
Supporting sources
…upon the alienability of the property in the trust fund, and thus no reason to include this time during which the trust is so destructible in determining whether a limitation is violative of the rule against perpetuities. Restatement, Property, sec. 373 states: “The period of time during which an interest is destructible,…