Mincey v. Arizona - Significance
Rufus Junior Mincey
The State of Arizona
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
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
Date of Decision
21 June 1978
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.
- 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).
- 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
- Mobile v. Bolden - Retreat From Civil Rights, Vote Dilution, No Guarantee Of Proportional Representation, Discriminatory Effect Vs. Discriminatory Intent
- Milliken v. Bradley - Significance, Busing: Was It Worth It?, Further Readings
- Mincey v. Arizona - Significance
- Other Free Encyclopedias