 |
 |
|
| |
|
|
Cupp v. Murphy
Supreme Court of Unted States (1973)
Respondent/Defendant: 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 wifes murder. 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.
Issue: Did the officers need a warrant before taking the finger nail samples?
Holding: No
Legal Reasoning: 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.