Mincey v Arizona
Mincey v Arizona
437 US 385 (1978)
Court History
The Appellant was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The defendant was convicted in an Iowa District Court; the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts decision. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Facts
During a narcotics raid on petitioner's apartment by an undercover police officer and several plainclothes policemen, the undercover officer was shot and killed, and petitioner was wounded, as were two other persons in the apartment. Other than looking for victims of the shooting and arranging for medical assistance, the narcotics agents, pursuant to a police department directive that police officers should not investigate incidents in which they are involved, made no further investigation. Shortly thereafter, however, homicide detectives arrived on the scene to take charge of the investigation, and they proceeded to conduct an exhaustive four-day warrantless search of the apartment, which included the opening of dresser drawers, the ripping up of carpets, and the seizure of 200 to 300 objects.
Issue
Was the search and seizure of evidence of the petitioners apartment, or in this case “crime scene,” permissible under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment?
Decision
Held
Reasons
The "murder scene exception" created by the Arizona Supreme Court to the warrant requirement is inconsistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the warrantless search of petitioner's apartment was not constitutionally permissible simply because a homicide had occurred there. Every individual has the right to privacy and due process, there was no warrant to search the apartment, being that the individual involved in this murder case had already been located, there were no exigent factors in which would authorize the police to search the apartment.
Rule
Police officers may not search a home categorized as a “crime scene” without a warrant or exigent factors.
437 US 385 (1978)
Court History
The Appellant was charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The defendant was convicted in an Iowa District Court; the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts decision. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Facts
During a narcotics raid on petitioner's apartment by an undercover police officer and several plainclothes policemen, the undercover officer was shot and killed, and petitioner was wounded, as were two other persons in the apartment. Other than looking for victims of the shooting and arranging for medical assistance, the narcotics agents, pursuant to a police department directive that police officers should not investigate incidents in which they are involved, made no further investigation. Shortly thereafter, however, homicide detectives arrived on the scene to take charge of the investigation, and they proceeded to conduct an exhaustive four-day warrantless search of the apartment, which included the opening of dresser drawers, the ripping up of carpets, and the seizure of 200 to 300 objects.
Issue
Was the search and seizure of evidence of the petitioners apartment, or in this case “crime scene,” permissible under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment?
Decision
Held
Reasons
The "murder scene exception" created by the Arizona Supreme Court to the warrant requirement is inconsistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the warrantless search of petitioner's apartment was not constitutionally permissible simply because a homicide had occurred there. Every individual has the right to privacy and due process, there was no warrant to search the apartment, being that the individual involved in this murder case had already been located, there were no exigent factors in which would authorize the police to search the apartment.
Rule
Police officers may not search a home categorized as a “crime scene” without a warrant or exigent factors.