What happened in mincey vs Arizona?

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.

What happened Rufus Mincey?

Mincey was convicted of all charges and sentenced to life in prison without parole for 25 years. He appealed the conviction and the Arizona Supreme Court tossed the murder conviction (we’ll get to that in a minute), but upheld the narcotics convictions.

What happened in Chimel v California?

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), was a 1969 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police officers arresting a person at home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but police may search the area within immediate reach of the person without a warrant.

What happened in Mincey v Arizona?

MINCEY v. ARIZONA MINCEY v. ARIZONA (1978) During a narcotics raid on petitioner’s apartment by an undercover police officer and several plainclothes policemen, the undercover officer was shot and killed, and petitioner was wounded, as were two other persons in the apartment.

What happened to Michael Mincey?

An undercover police officer and petitioner Mincey were shot during a drug bust. Mincey was tried and convicted of murder, assault, and drug offenses. Mincey’s motions to suppress the fruits of a four-day search of his home, and his statements while in intensive care at the hospital were denied by the trial court and the Arizona Supreme Court.

Was Mincey’s evidence unlawful?

The trial court convicted Mincey of murder, assault, and drug charges despite his claim that evidence used against him at trial was unlawfully seized. Mincey appealed and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld its previous rulings that there is an exception to the warrant requirement when searching the scene of a homicide.

Are statements made by John Mincey admissible in Arizona courts?

The Court, in 437 U. S. advises the Arizona courts on the admissibility of certain statements made by Mincey that are relevant only to the murder charge. Because Mincey’s murder conviction was reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court, and it is not certain that there will be a retrial, I would not reach this issue.