Cupp v. Murphy (1973)
United States Supreme Court
Author: P Mac Daddy

Procedure: The trial court convicted Daniel Murphy of second degree murder of his estranged wife based upon blood and cells police were able to lift from beneath his fingernails at the police station. The court of appeals reversed on the basis that even though the officers had probable cause, they had no exigent circumstances and they should have gotten a warrant before searching the defendant's person. Now the state appeals the reversal of the trial court ruling.

Facts: Murphy; the defendant's wife was murdered by strangulation. The police called the defendant to the police station. Police officers noticed a spot on defendant's fingernail which they suspected to be dried blood. They asked the defendant if they can take his fingernail samples and defendant refused. After some struggle, the samples were taken and defendant was released. Victim's body cells were found in the sample and defendant was convicted for his wife’s murder.

Issue: Did the officers need a warrant before taking the finger nail samples?  (Murphy was only brought in for questioning, he was arrested a month later based on the lab reports of the blood removed for underneath his nails)

Reasoning: (Stewart) The court used Chimel v. California to rule that when there are chances that the defendant might destroy the evidence which is under his control, the officers can save this evidence without obtaining a warrant. The court considered the fact that the defendant tried to destroy the evidence in the current case by rubbing his hands and the officers had the right to save the evidence from being destroyed. So the ruling of the lower court was reversed. When Murphy was at the station house and was asked about the blood under his fingernail he became nervous and there was no doubt he would attempt to destroy it, if the police did not take it there!