Blackburn v. Alabama, 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. It is apparent from the record in this case that Mincey's statements were not "the product of his free and rational choice." Emergency assistance was requested, and some medical aid was administered to Officer Headricks. Footnote 11 He was, in short, "at the complete mercy" of Detective Hust, unable to escape or resist the thrust of Hust's interrogation. See Katz v. United States, supra. [Footnote 3/1] The uncontradicted testimony of Detective Hust also reveals a questioning that was far from "relentless." Id., at 86. 428 U.S. at 428 U. S. 526 (dissenting opinion); see id. It is quite another to argue that he also has a lessened right of privacy in his entire house. The Court is thus left solely with its own conclusion as to the reliability of various witnesses based on a reexamination of the record on appeal. 10

apartment, and find all kinds of stuff.

Cf. Pp. Although the friend tried to keep the nine officers out, Headricks was able to slip into the apartment and meet Mincey in the bedroom. special responsibility for the State. ; Trupiano v. United States, If the warrantless search of a homicide scene is reasonable, why not the warrantless search of the scene of a rape, a robbery, or a burglary? ", "HUST: Do you remember shooting anyone or firing a gun?

Mincey gave unresponsive or uninformative answers to several more questions, and then said again that he did not want to talk without a lawyer. And the police may seize any evidence that is in plain view during the course of their legitimate emergency activities. Michigan v. Tyler, supra, at 509-510. MINCEY v. ARIZONA(1978) No. The petitioner was indicted for murder, assault,1 and three counts of narcotics offenses. For exa ple, Hust claimed that immediately after Mincey first expressed a desire to remain silent, Hust said Mincey need not answer any questions but Mincey responded by indicating that he wanted to continue. He was convicted on all charges. If the warrantless search of a homicide scene is reasonable, why not the warrantless search of the scene of a rape, a robbery, or a burglary? As the Court openly concedes, there were in this case none of the "gross abuses that have led the Court in other cases to find confessions involuntary, such as beatings . it is appropriate to consider also the petitioner's contention that statements he made from a hospital bed were involuntary, and therefore could not constitutionally be used against him at his trial.

In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, . The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the murder and assault convictions on state-law grounds, 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. They neither searched further nor seized any evidence; they merely guarded the suspects and the premises. As the Court openly concedes, there were in this case none of the "gross abuses that have led the Court in other cases to find confessions involuntary, such as beatings . The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the defendant whose conviction was upheld in State v. Sample, supra, on the ground, inter alia, that the warrantless search of the homicide scene violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. the next day.

Hodgman attempted to slam the door in order to keep the other officers from entering, but was pushed back against the wall. 367, 369, 92 L.Ed.

Pp. Since the investigating homicide detectives knew that Officer Headricks was seriously injured, began the search promptly upon their arrival at the apartment, and searched only for evidence either establishing the circumstances of death or "relevant to motive and intent or knowledge (narcotics, e. g.)," id., at 483, 566 P.2d, at 284, the court found that the warrantless search of the petitioner's apartment had not violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Chimel v. California, supra, 395 U.S., at 766, 89 S.Ct., at 2041. (1966), was irrelevant. "No consideration relevant to the Fourth Amendment suggests any point of rational limitation" of such a doctrine. But any criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement is a denial of due process of law, "even though there is ample evidence aside from the confession to support the conviction." U.S. 293 Because of these constraints, we will often be faced with a Hobson's choice in cases of less than national significance that could formerly have been left to the lower federal courts: either to deny certiorari and thereby let stand divergent state and federal decisions with regard to Fourth Amendment rights; or to grant certiorari and thereby add to our calendar, which many believe is already overcrowded, cases that might better have been resolved elsewhere. We decline to hold that the seriousness of the offense under investigation itself creates exigent circumstances of the kind that under the Fourth Amendment justify a warrantless search.

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. The reliability of Hust's report is uncertain. See App. 393, 410-413, 528 P.2d 1, 18-21; Patrick v. State, 227 A.2d 486, 488-490 (Del. But a warrantless search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation," Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 25-26, and it simply cannot be contended that this search was justified by any emergency threatening life or limb. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Circuit Court's "position squarely conflicts with Mincey v. Arizona (437 U.S. 385) where we rejected the contention that there is a 'murder scene exception' to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment." [437 It requires careful evaluation of all the circumstances of the interrogation. The Stone holding has not eased the burden on the lower federal courts as much as the Stone majority might have hoped, since those courts have had to struggle over what this Court meant by "an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim," 428 U.S., at 494, 96 S.Ct., at 3052. In his petition for certiorari, petitioner challenged the introduction of evidence material to his narcotics convictions that was seized during a lengthy warrantless search of his apartment. In sum, of the three law enforcement interests identified to justify the detention in Summers, none applies with the same or similar force to the detention of recent occupants beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. If certiorari had not been granted, we would have left standing a decision of the State's highest court on a question of federal constitutional law that had been resolved in a directly opposing way by the highest federal court having special responsibility for the State. Hust nonetheless continued to question him, and a nurse who was present suggested it would be best if Mincey answered. Id., at 86. The Court is thus left solely with its own conclusion as to the reliability of various witnesses based on a re-examination of the record on appeal. To what extent, if any, the evidence found in Mincey's apartment was permissibly seized under established Fourth Amendment standards will be for the Arizona courts to resolve on remand. Beyond that, however, they left any further search to other detectives per police procedure. Blackburn v. Alabama, supra, at 361 U. S. 206; Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U. S. 737, 384 U. S. 741 (1966); Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U. S. 519, 390 U. S. 521 (1968).

Petillo v. New Jersey, 562 F.2d 903 (CA3 1977); O'Berry v. Wainwright, 546 F.2d 1204 (CA5 1977). Berger v. Superior Court, 110 Ariz. 281, 517 P.2d 1277 (1974). 1336, 1842-1843, 10 L.Ed.2d 513. 437 U. S. 388-395. U.S. 385, 401] The petitioner was indicted for murder, assault, The testimony and the briefs and arguments of counsel were thereafter directed solely to whether the answers had been voluntarily given, and the court specifically ruled that they would be admissible for impeachment purposes only. The investigation of crime would always be simplified if warrants were unnecessary.

The petitioner was indicted for murder, assault,1 and three counts of narcotics offenses. Officer Headricks slipped inside and moved quickly into the bedroom. But any criminal trial use against a defendant of his involuntary statement is a denial of due process of law "even though there is ample evidence aside from the confession to support the conviction."

I believe that the trial court was entitled to conclude that, notwithstanding Mincey's medical condition, his statements in the intensive care unit were admissible. I can't give facts.

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. This argument appears to have two prongs.

(1971); Oregon v. Hass, Although Mincey requested a lawyer and that the detective stop questioning him, the detective persisted in questioning Mincey for four hours. We agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, however, that the finding of voluntariness "a pear[s] from the record with unmistakable clarity." U.S. 752, 766