What is Mincey v Arizona? In the case of Mincey v. Arizona, the state of Arizona asked the Supreme Court to recognize a new category of exigent circumstances for which a search warrant is not required.
What happened in Mincey v Arizona?
MINCEY v. ARIZONA MINCEY v. ARIZONA (1978) 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.
What was Johnson v Johnson v Mincey?
Johnson v. United States, supra, at 13-14. In sum, we hold that the "murder scene exception" created by the Arizona Supreme Court is inconsistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments - that the warrantless search of Mincey's apartment was not constitutionally permissible simply because a homicide had recently occurred there."
Do Mincey's statements violate Miranda v Arizona?
As the Court notes, since Mincey's statements were not used as part of the prosecution's case in chief but only in impeachment, any violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), was irrelevant. See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); Oregon v.
What did Mincey ask Hust to do?
Mincey vainly asked Hust to desist. Moreover, he complained several times that he was confused or unable to think clearly, or that he could answer more accurately
What happened in Mincey v. Arizona?
Arizona. 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.
What evidence was brought against the petitioner in the Arizona homicide trial?
Much of the evidence introduced against him at trial (including photographs and diagrams, bullets and shell casings, guns, narcotics, and narcotics paraphernalia) was the product of the four-day search of his apartment. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reaffirmed previous decisions in which it had held that the warrantless search of the scene of a homicide is constitutionally permissible. [ Footnote 4] It stated its ruling as follows:
What is the second argument in support of the State's categorical exception to the warrant requirement?
The State's second argument in support of its categorical exception to the warrant requirement is that a possible homicide presents an emergency situation demanding immediate action. We do not question the right of the police to respond to emergency situations. Numerous state [ Footnote 6] and federal [ Footnote 7] cases have recognized that the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid. Similarly, when the police come upon the scene of a homicide, they may make a prompt warrantless search of the area to see if there are other victims or if a killer is still on the premises. Cf. Michigan v. Tyler, supra at 436 U. S. 509 -510.
What happened to Petitioner's apartment?
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. In the evening of the same day as the raid, one of the detectives went to the hospital where petitioner was confined in the intensive care unit, and, after giving him Miranda warnings, persisted in interrogating him while he was lying in bed barely conscious, encumbered by tubes, needles, and a breathing apparatus, and despite the fact that he repeatedly asked that the interrogation stop until he could get a lawyer. Subsequently, petitioner was indicted for, and convicted of, murder, assault, and narcotics offenses. At his trial in an Arizona court, during which much of the evidence introduced against him was the product of the four-day search, and on appeal, petitioner contended that the evidence used against him had been unlawfully seized from his apartment without a warrant, and that statements obtained from him at the hospital, used to impeach his credibility, were inadmissible because they had not been made voluntarily. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the murder and assault convictions on state law grounds, but affirmed the narcotics convictions, holding that the warrantless search of a homicide scene is permissible under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that petitioner's statements in the hospital were voluntary.
Is there a retrial for Mincey?
The Court, in 437 U. S. advises the Arizona courts on the admissibility of certain statements made by Mincey that are relevant only to the murder charge. Because Mincey's murder conviction was reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court, and it is not certain that there will be a retrial, I would not reach this issue.
Did the search of the petitioner's apartment violate the right of privacy?
The first contention is that the search of the petitioner's apartment did not invade any constitutionally protected right of privacy. See Katz v. United States, supra. This argument appears to have two prongs. On the one hand, the State urges that, by shooting Officer Headricks, Mincey forfeited any reasonable expectation of privacy in his apartment. We have recently rejected a similar waiver argument in Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 436 U. S. 505 -506; it suffices here to say that this reasoning would impermissibly convict the suspect even before the evidence against him was gathered. [ Footnote 5] On the other hand, the State contends that the police entry to arrest Mincey was so great an invasion of his privacy that the additional intrusion caused by the search was constitutionally irrelevant. But this claim is hardly tenable in light of the extensive nature of this search. It is one thing to say that one who is legally taken into police custody has a lessened right of privacy in his person. See United States v. Edwards, 415 U. S. 800, 415 U. S. 808 -809; United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218. It is quite another to argue that he also has a lessened right of privacy in his entire house. Indeed this very argument was rejected when it was advanced to support the warrantless search of a dwelling where a search occurred as "incident" to the arrest of its occupant. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 395 U. S. 766 n. 12.
How long was the detective Hust interview?
1 The uncontradicted testimony of Detective Hust also reveals a questioning that was far from "relentless." While the interviews took place over a three-hour time span, the interviews were not "very long; probably not more than an hour total for everything." Id., at 59. Hust would leave the room whenever Mincey received medical treatment "or if it looked like he was getting a little bit exhausted." Ibid. According to Detective Hust, Mincey never "los [t] consciousness at any time." Id., at 58.
Why can't Mincey talk?
Mincey was unable to talk because of the tube in his mouth, and so he responded to Detective Hust's questions by writing answers on pieces of paper provided by the hospital. 11 Hust told Mincey he was under arrest for the murder of a police officer, gave him the warnings required by Miranda v.
What evidence was brought against the petitioner in the Arizona homicide trial?
Much of the evidence introduced against him at trial (including photographs and diagrams, bullets and shell casings, guns, narcotics, and narcotics paraphernalia) was the product of the four-day search of his apartment. On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court reaffirmed previous decisions in which it had held that the warrantless search of the scene of a homicide is constitutionally permissible. 4 It stated its ruling as follows:
What happened to Petitioner's apartment?
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. In the evening of the same day as the raid, one of the detectives went to the hospital where petitioner was confined in the intensive-care unit, and, after giving him Miranda warnings, persisted in interrogating him while he was lying in bed barely conscious, encumbered by tubes, needles, and a breathing apparatus, and despite the fact that he repeatedly asked that the interrogation stop until he could get a lawyer. Subsequently, petitioner was indicted for, and convicted of, murder, assault, and narcotics offenses. At his trial in an Arizona court, during which much of the evidence introduced against him was the product of the four-day search, and on appeal, petitioner contended that the evidence used against him had been unlawfully seized from his apartment without a warrant and that statements obtained from him at the hospital, used to impeach his credibility, were inadmissible because they had not been made voluntarily. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the murder and assault convictions on state-law grounds, but affirmed the narcotics convictions, holding that the warrantless search of a homicide scene is permissible under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that petitioner's statements in the hospital were voluntary. Held:
What is the murder scene exception in Arizona?
1. 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. Pp. 388-395. [437 U.S. 385, 386]
What is the 4th amendment?
The Fourth Amendment proscribes all unreasonable searches and seizures, and it is a cardinal principle that "searches conducted outside the judicial process , without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Four th Amendment - subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (footnotes omitted); see also South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 381 (POWELL, J., concurring); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 481 ; Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34 ; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ; Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699, 705 . The Arizona Supreme Court did not hold that the search of the petitioner's apartment fell within any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement previously recognized by this Court, but rather that the search of a homicide scene should be recognized as an additional exception.
Which amendments allow a warrantless search of a homicide scene?
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the murder and assault convictions on state-law grounds, but affirmed the narcotics convictions, holding that the warrantless search of a homicide scene is permissible under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that petitioner's statements in the hospital were voluntary. Held: 1.
What was the pretrial motion for Mincey?
Mincey made a pretrial motion to suppress the fruits of the four-day warrantless search of his home, but the court denied that motion. The trial court convicted Mincey of murder, assault, and drug charges despite his claim that evidence used against him at trial was unlawfully seized.
How long was the Mincey's home searched?
Shortly after Officer Headricks was shot, other officers arrived and began investigating and searching for evidence. Over four days, Mincey’s home was thoroughly searched, although a warrant was never obtained.
What is the right amount of information?
The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
What is Quimbee study aid?
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
How many law students use Quimbee?
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 507,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
What is the rule of law?
The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.
What is the exigent circumstance in which police officers are justified in conducting a search without a warrant?
One such situation in which police officers are justified in conducting a search without a warrant is where so-called "exigent," or emergency, circumstances exist. The most important exigent circumstance is where a search is necessary to find an injured person or to otherwise prevent the death or injury of a person. In the case of Mincey v.
What was the purpose of the Mincey vs Arizona case?
Arizona, the state of Arizona asked the Supreme Court to recognize a new category of exigent circumstances for which a search warrant is not required. On 28 October 1978, undercover police officers in Tucson, Arizona, conducted a raid at an apartment occupied by Rufus Mincey. Shots were fired by Mincey, and one officer was ...
What is the importance of the Fourth Amendment?
Significance. The Court severely limited the ability of police officers to conduct searches of murder scenes without first obtaining a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides that the government may not subject a person to an unreasonable search or seizure of their " persons, houses, papers, and effects.".
What is an exception to a warrant?
These situations, referred to as exceptions to the warrant requirement, typically involve scenarios where the police do not have time to obtain a warrant, or where obtaining a warrant would be useless. One such situation in which police officers are justified in conducting a search without a warrant is where so-called "exigent," or emergency, ...
What is reasonable cause for a police search?
Generally, to be reasonable, a search must be based on "probable cause," that is, the police officers must have some reason to believe that the search will find contraband, evidence of a crime, or similar items. Also, prior to conducting a search, the police generally have to obtain a warrant from a judge authorizing the search.
Why was an exception necessary in Arizona?
According to Arizona, such an exception was necessary due to the public's interest in quickly investigating and solving murder cases. The Court found this argument unpersuasive: [T]he State points to the vital public interest in the prompt investigation of the extremely serious crime of murder.
When did the Supreme Court hear the Mincey case?
Supreme Court through a procedure known as a petition for writ of certiorari. The Court granted the petition and heard the case on 21 February 1978.
How long was the detective Hust interview?
1 The uncontradicted testimony of Detective Hust also reveals a questioning that was far from "relentless." While the interviews took place over a three-hour time span, the interviews were not "very long; probably not more than an hour total for everything." Id., at 59. Hust would leave the room whenever Mincey received medical treatment "or if it looked like he was getting a little bit exhausted." Ibid. According to Detective Hust, Mincey never "los [t] consciousness at any time." Id., at 58.
What charges did Mincey face?
The petitioner was indicted for murder, assault, 1 and three counts of narcotics offenses. He was tried at a single trial and convicted on all the charges. At his trial and on appeal, he contended that evidence used against him had been unlawfully seized from his apartment without a warrant and that statements used to impeach his credibility were inadmissible because they had not been made voluntarily. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the murder and assault convictions on state-law grounds, 2 but affirmed the narcotics convictions. 115 Ariz. 472, 566 P.2d 273. It held that the warrantless search of a homicide scene is permissible under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment s and that Mincey's statements were voluntary. We granted certiorari to consider these substantial constitutional questions. 434 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 295, 54 L.Ed.2d 188.
What happened to the petitioner in 1978?
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 ...
Why did Hodgman slam the door?
Hodgman attempted to slam the door in order to keep the other officers from entering, but was pushed back against the wall. As the police entered the apartment, a rapid volley of shots was heard from the bedroom. Officer Headricks emerged and collapsed on the floor.
What is the murder scene exception in Arizona?
1. 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 constitutitionally permissible simply because a homicide had occurred there. Pp. 388-395.
Why was the search of Mincey's apartment not constitutionally permissible?
In sum, we hold that the "murder scene exception" created by the Arizona Supreme Court is inconsistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment s—that the warrantless search of Mincey's apartment was not constitutionally permissible simply because a homicide had recently occurred there. 9
Who was the cop who knocked on the door of the apartment?
On the afternoon of October 28, 1974, undercover police officer Barry Headricks of the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad knocked on the door of an apartment in Tucson, Ariz., occupied by the petitioner, Rufus Mincey. Earlier in the day, Officer Headricks had allegedly arranged to purchase a quantity of heroin from Mincey and had left, ostensibly to obtain money. On his return he was accompanied by nine other plainclothes policemen and a deputy county attorney. The door was opened by John Hodgman, one of three acquaintances of Mincey who were in the living room of the apartment. Officer Headricks slipped inside and moved quickly into the bedroom. Hodgman attempted to slam the door in order to keep the other officers from entering, but was pushed back against the wall. As the police entered the apartment, a rapid volley of shots was heard from the bedroom. Officer Headricks emerged and collapsed on the floor. When other officers entered the bedroom they found Mincey lying on the floor, wounded and semiconscious. Officer Headricks died a few hours later in the hospital.