13.7: Mincey v. Arizona

PETITIONER                                                                               RESPONDENT

Rufus Junior Mincey                                                                   Arizona

LOCATION

University Medical Center

DOCKET NO.                                                                                 DECIDED BY

77-5353                                                                                     Burger Court

LOWER COURT

Arizona Supreme Court

CITATION

437 US 385 (1978)

ARGUED

Feb 21, 1978

DECIDED

Jun 21, 1978

GRANTED

Oct 17, 1977

ADVOCATES

Richard Oseran for petitioner

Galen H. Wilkes for respondent

Facts of the case

On October 28, 1974, Officer Barry Headricks of the Tucson Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad allegedly arranged to purchase a quantity of heroin from Rufus Mincey. Later, Officer Headricks knocked on the door of Mincey's apartment, accompanied by nine other plainclothes officers. Mincey’s acquaintance, John Hodgman, opened the door. Officer Headricks slipped inside and quickly went to the bedroom. As the other officers entered the apartment -- despite Hodgman’s attempts to stop them -- the sound of gunfire came from the bedroom. Officer Headricks emerged from the bedroom and collapsed on the floor; he died a few hours later.

The other officers found Mincey lying on the floor of his bedroom, wounded and semiconscious, then quickly searched the apartment for other injured persons. Mincey suffered damage to his sciatic nerve and partial paralysis of his right leg; a doctor described him as depressed almost to the point of being comatose. A detective interrogated him for several hours at the hospital, ignoring Mincey’s repeated requests for counsel. In addition, soon after the shooting, two homicide detectives arrived at the apartment and took charge of the investigation. Their search lasted for four days, during which officers searched, photographed and diagrammed the entire apartment. They did not obtain a warrant. The state charged Mincey with murder, assault, and three counts of narcotics offenses. Much of the prosecution’s evidence was the product of the extensive search of Mincey’s apartment. Mincey contended at trial that this evidence was unconstitutionally taken without a warrant and that his statements were inadmissible because they were not made voluntarily. In a preliminary hearing, the court found that Mincey made the statements voluntarily.

Question

1. Did the admission of evidence taken during a four-day long warrantless search of Mincey’s residence constitute an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
2. Did the admission of Mincey’s responses to police questioning made while he was a patient in the intensive care unit of a hospital violate his privilege against self-incrimination, rights to counsel and due process under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments?

FOR	AGAINST
Burger White Powell Stevens Marshall Brennan Stewart Blackmun	Rehnquist

Conclusion

Yes and yes. In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court held that the extensive, warrantless search of Mincey’s apartment was unreasonable and unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Stewart wrote that warrantless searches were per se unreasonable with a few specific exceptions, and rejected Arizona’s argument that the search of a homicide scene was one of these exceptions. Justice William Rehnquist concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed that the warrantless search was unconstitutional, but argued that the majority failed to defer to the trial court’s determination that Mincey’s statements were voluntary.

Contributors and Attributions

• Larry Alvarez (Faculty of Administration of Justice Instructor and Administration of Justice at College of the Canyons)