Mincey v. Arizona
Abstract
Law enforcement and criminal justice is an area that has received criticism in some countries due to lack of clarity in terms of what should be done when and how. The “murder scene search exception” to the fourth amendment warrant requirement is one of the hotly debated issues as far as justice and law enforcement is concerned in the United States. In Mencey v. Arizona, the U.S Supreme Court argued that the search that was conducted in Mincey’s apartment violated the fourth amendment while the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that it was lawful. Motion by the petitioner to have the charges dropped due to privacy invasion was rejected, and further retrial by the Arizona courts landed him in prison.
Introduction
Mincey v. Arizona case, No. 77-535 is a case which was presented in the Supreme Court of the United States. It was heard on February 21, 1978, and decided on June 21 the same year. A group of nine judges heard the case. Justice Stewart, Justice Thurgood Marshall, Justice Blackmun, Justice Stevens, Justice White, Justice Burger, Justice Powell and Justice William Brennam all concurred that the search violated the privacy of the petitioner since it was not warranted and that the information that was obtained from Mincey by detective Hust was involuntarily given. On the other hand, Justice William Rehnquist concurred with the rest of the team on only one issue-the warrantless search was unlawful, and dissented on the other parts arguing that the decision as to whether Mincey gave his statements voluntarily was unclear (McInnis, 2009). After Mincey was first charged in the Arizona trial courts, he appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. His motion of unlawful seizure of evidence was rejected, forcing him to petition again for the U.S Supreme Court and certiorari was granted making him the plaintiff while Arizona Supreme Court became the defendant.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Case Summary
The case revolved around a police officer, Barry Headricks and an alleged drug dealer, Rufus Mincey. Headricks, who was a member of the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad, visited Rufus Mincey in his apartment on October 28, 1974, during the morning hours. He made arrangements with Mincey to go and get some money and come back to buy heroin later in the day (Acker & Malatesta, 2013). In what might be seen as a set-up to arrest Mincey for drug dealing, Headricks returned later in the afternoon with nine other officers who were in plain clothes and a deputy county attorney. When he knocked the door, John Hodgman, one of Mincey’s three friends who were in the sitting room opened the door.
Headrick got in and moved fast to the bedroom where he knew the heroin was concealed. Hodgman tried to close the door so that the other officers who had accompanied Headricks could not get into the apartment, but he was pushed back against the wall, and the officers found their way in. No sooner had they got in than, they heard some gunshots from the bedroom. Headricks emerged from the bedroom and fell on the floor. The other officers got into the bedroom and found Mincey lying on the floor alongside another occupant, semiconscious and wounded (Acker & Malatesta, 2013). Mincey had his sciatic nerve damaged, and his right leg was partially paralyzed.
In a period of about ten minutes, a new team, the Tucson homicide investigators arrived to take charge and relieve the narcotic officers. The wounded officer and Mincey were taken to the hospital under the supervision of the homicide officers. Unfortunately, Headricks died in the hospital later in the day. The officers then searched the apartment for four days, without a search warrant (Acker & Malatesta, 2013). They photographed, diagramed, opened drawers, cupboards, and closets.
Their search led to the seizure of two hundred to three hundred evidentiary objects, which were later used against Mincey. According to Bloss, (2009) privacy is a sensitive right which should be protected by law. While in the hospital, detective Hust interrogated Mincey for long hours. He insisted that he was not comfortable answering the questions without a lawyer, but the officer kept interrogating him even when he was unconscious
Mincey was indicted for assault, murder and three counts of narcotic offenses. His first trial in the Arizona state trial court led to his conviction on all the charges in what the court termed as “murder scene search exception.” He claimed that the evidence used to charge him was unlawfully seized and appealed. The Arizona Supreme Court maintained the same ruling; the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a situation that made Mincey seek appeal of his conviction once again to the U.S Supreme Court through a petition which was granted.
The decision that the search was conducted within the law was rejected unanimously by the court together with the request by the Arizona Court to treat the murder scene exception to the requirement of a warrant. Mincey was later retried in the Arizona courts and convicted even when the court could not find a way to introduce the evidence that was seized from his apartment (Acker & Malatesta, 2013). The court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Effects on Ruling towards Criminal Justice or Law Enforcement
Under the Fourth Amendment in the law system of the United States, searches that are conducted outside the judicial process without prior approval by a magistrate or a judge are in themselves unreasonable save for a few expectations that are delineated (Del, 2010). A Clear ruling was made in similar cases; Thompson v. Louisiana in 1984 and Flippo v. West Virginia in 1999 and this challenges the applicability of the exception in law enforcement. So giving a different ruling on this particular case brings a contradiction. An exception that did not exist previously was created by the court in order to charge the petitioner. This means that there will be no uniformity in rulings considering that cases are determined depending on the ruling of similar cases (Dennis & Kelvin, 2015). This is indeed unfair.
The stand by the court that police may carry out a search without necessarily having a search warrant is likely to cause a serious breach of the law. Police may misuse this decision and engage in such activities leading to the invasion of privacy. The Fourth Amendment is very essential and should be respected to protect against privacy invasion (Cronan et al., 2015). It is, therefore, worth concluding that the ruling violates the constitution and hence law enforcement is compromised. All judges agreed unanimously that charging Mincey was not right, but then he was later imprisoned. The ruling intrudes the judges’ practice capacities in that even after they all concurred that the evidence and the information Mincey gave in an unstable condition, in a manner that was not supposed and he was retried and convicted. This affects the law enforcement process and deprives citizens of their very important rights. A contradiction is so conspicuous in the ruling of the exception in the murder case had not been stated before. The effect here is a dilemma as to whether this exception should be included and used to make ruling on similar cases in future.
Conclusion
Mincey v. Arizona is a controversial case. When taken for trial in the Arizona Trial Courts, the ruling is that the search was allowed and that it did not violate the Fourth Amendment simply because a homicide case was involved. Later a different argument by the U.S Supreme Court reached the decision that evidence seized in the petitioner’s residential home should not be used. However, the petitioner is retried and later prisoned. The “murder scene exception” has not been fully recognized. It becomes difficult therefore to give a sound judgment. This calls for action to be taken as far as the exemption is concerned so as to give proper direction to law enforcement procedures. The exceptions should be made clear and stated in such a manner that dilemma does not arise in the ruling. If the law says that police should obtain a search warrant, then they should do exactly that. Otherwise, the exceptions should not be a debating issue if justice has to be done to criminals.
References
Cronan, J. P., Huie, R. S., Kwok, C. T. S., Nepveu, K., & West, C. M. (2015). Fourth Amendment Trends and the Supreme Court's October 1999 Term Yale Law & Policy Review , 19 (1), 17
McInnis, T. N. (2009). The evolution of the Fourth Amendment. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Dennis, P. and Kelvin, B. K. (2015). Preliminary Criminal Investigations: Solving Crimes in a contemporary society. New York: LawTech Publishing Group.
Del, C. R. V. (2010). Criminal procedure: Law and practice . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Acker, J. R., & Malatesta, J. A. M. (2013). Introduction to law and criminal justice. Boston: Jones & Bartlett Learning;
Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Bloss, W. P. (2009). Under a watchful eye: Privacy rights and criminal justice . Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger.
