Mincey v. Arizona (1978) (Exigent Circumstance)
Author: Helper

Facts: Mincey was convicted of murder, assault and 3 counts of narcotics. In Oct Officer H had allegedly arranged to purchase a quanity of heroin from Mincey. When H returned to Mincey’s to pick up the drugs, 9 plain dressed officers accompanied him.  When the officer’s arrived, H slipped inside the house and a friend of Mincey’s attempted to keep the other officers out.  However the police got into the apartment and a shots were fired, H was hit.  When the officers entered they found both Mincey and H hit, H died later on.  After this incident, homicide crews searched and seized items from the apartment.

Issue: Whether the search of Mincey’s apartment was constitutionally permissible or did the search fall into of the “well-delineated exceptions”?

Holding: Not constitutionally permissible.  The AZ Supreme Court has held that a “murder scene” is an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4^th Amendment.  The Supreme Court disagrees.  A warrantless search must be “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation,” (Terry v. Ohio) and it simply cannot be contended that this search was justified by an emergency threatening life or limb.  Here, all the people in Mincey’s apartment were accounted for and the 4-day search did not commence until all the bodies/people were removed.  Further, the extent of the search here was certainly not warranted, opening drawers and ripping up carpets can hardly be rationalized in terms of the legitimate concerns that justify an emergency search.