Mincey v. Arizona - Significance

Petitioner

Rufus Junior Mincey

Respondent

The State of Arizona

Petitioner's Claim

That a search of his home conducted by police officers who did not first obtain a search warrant violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches, and therefore his criminal conviction based on evidence seized during the search was invalid.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Richard Oseran

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Galen H. Wilkes

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

21 June 1978

Decision

That there is no "murder scene" exception to the requirement that police obtain a warrant before searching someone's home, and thus the appellant's conviction was invalid because it was based on evidence seized by the police during a warrantless search of his home.

Related Cases

• United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950).
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963).
• Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
• Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

Further Readings

• Dressler, Joshua. Understanding Criminal Procedure. New York: Matthew Bender & Company, 1991.
• "Killer of Tucson Police Officer Denied Request for Early Parole." Tucson Citizen, July 20, 1995, p. 1C.
• LaFave, Wayne R. Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, 3rd edition. Volume 3. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1996