Major Supreme Court 4th Amendment Decisions: Searches and Collection of Evidence

Major Supreme Court 4th Amendment Decisions: Searches and Collection of Evidence 

By Dr. Peter A. Barone, Esq.

One of the very first things that the defense attorney is going to examine and attempt to dissect in order to file a Motion to Suppress is did the law enforcement officials have the right to enter the location, after making sure it was safe and there were no additional victims or suspects, and perform a search of the scene, locating of items on the scene, collecting and impounding the items of evidence. If the law enforcement officials are violating the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Once an item is recognized as evidence it must be properly collected and preserved for either use as it is or to be sent to a laboratory for examination and or testing. However, in order for physical evidence to be admissible, it must have been legally obtained and this is the first place the defense is going to look to see if they can successfully present and win a motion to suppress the evidence collected by the law enforcement official and then attempting to be presented for acceptance as evidence by the prosecutor.

The courts have severely restricted the right of the police to search certain homicide crime scenes without a warrant. The United States Supreme Court has rendered three major decisions, which require police to obtain a search warrant to search a premise where the suspect and the deceased share a proprietary right to the premises. In all of the cases I worked as a homicide detective and as a major crimes felony prosecutor I always obtained a warrant and advised my detectives and investigators to get a warrant. When the law enforcement official obtains a search warrant the burden is shifted to the defense to prove that what the law enforcement officials did and located at the scene regarding evidence collection was wrong. If the law enforcement officials go onto a scene and do not get a warrant and locate items they deem to be valuable evidence and the defense brings a motion to suppress then the burden is on the prosecutor to prove, via the testimony of the law enforcement officials, that their actions were lawful and did not violate the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution.

In the case of Mincey v. Arizona 437 US 385 (1978) The Supreme Court advised that the police had violated the defendant's fourth amendment rights by the actions that had taken. Mincey, who was drug dealer and he had shot and killed an undercover narcotics officer during a drug raid. During this altercation Mincey was wounded and one of his companions were killed in the subsequent exchange of gun fire. The Narcotics officers, following procedure secured the premises and notified the Homicide personnel. The Homicide detectives arrived on the scnee and then they conducted an investigation during which hundreds of pieces of evidence were seized by the police over a three-day crime scene search. 

Mincey was arrested, charged and subsequently convicted of the murder of the undercover officer. However, on appeal the conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court, which maintained that Mincey's Fourth Amendment rights were violated and that the police should have secured a search warrant. The Supreme Court basically informed law enforcement that "There was not any homicide crime scene exception" to the Fourth Amendment. In this case the detectives should have secured and locked down the scene while they applied for a search warrant. The only two ways of conducting a search of this crime scene in a legally manner was to obtain consent by Mincey, which more than likely would not be granted, or to apply for and obtain a search warrant from a detached and neutral magistrate.

In 1984 The United States Supreme Court once again stepped in to address the same issue in Thompson v Louisiana 469 US 17 (1984). In the Thompson case, a woman who was reportedly depressed shot and killed her husband. The women then took an overdose of pills in an attempt to commit suicide after shooting and killing her husband. After taking the pills she then suddenly experienced a "change-of-heart" and decided she didn't want to die after-all. The woman then decided to call her daughter, who in turn called the Sheriff's Department, which dispatched an ambulance and deputies to the woman's home. The woman was transported to the hospital where she was treated. 

Investigators were called to the house and while they were in the residence they gathered evidence of the murder from the crime scene. Going back to Mincey and understanding that the woman and man were married and no one else lived in the home that left the husband, who was dead and the woman who killed him to give consent. Once the woman was taken to the hpsotial and the scene was checked for safety there was not additional reason for the law enforcement officials to remain on the scene to search. They did not have any exigent circumstances left, the man could not give consent and the woman was not going to give consent due to her mental state from the pills and the fact that she was the subject of the homicide. 

The woman was subsequently charged, tried and then convicted in the murder of her husband. The United States Supreme Court ruled against The State of Louisiana citing the Mincey Decision and the expectation of privacy provided in the Fourth Amendment. The woman's conviction was overturned. Once again the courts ruled that there was NO Homicide Exception and that the police were required to obtain a search warrant. Again, all law enforcement had to do was to lock down the house and then obtain a warrant from a neutral and detached magistrate.

In 1999 The Supreme Court once again stepped in to address the same issues raised in the Mincey and Thompson cases. This time it was Flippo v West Virginia 98 US 8770 (1999). Flippo was a pastor who reportedly was having a homosexual affair with a member of his congregation. His wife had discovered the relationship and was going to divorce him. Flippo convinced her that they should reconcile and talked her into going on a "camping trip." They went to a cabin in West Virginia that the pastor had rented. While at the cabin, the pastor reported that they had become victims of a home invasion during which his wife was fatally beaten and the pastor was slightly injured. The police were not impressed with Flippo's injuries. He was brought to a local hospital and "patched-up." Investigators, who were processing the crime scene, came upon Flippo's briefcase. Inside the briefcase were various pornographic pictures of Flippo and his male lover engaged in sexual activities. These materials, which represented "motive" as well as the other evidence seized from the cabin, were introduced into trial. Flippo was convicted of the murder of his wife. The conviction was overturned based on the same issues raised in Mincey and Thompson.

Again, once the wife’s body and Filppo left the scene there was no legal reason for law enforcement officials to remain on the scene and process the scene unless they requested consent from Filppo to do so. Here again the law enforcement officials should have locked down the scene and obtained a search warrant. It would have been wise to ask Filippo for consent and if he refused it could have been used by the investigators in the application for the search warrant.

It appears to be pretty obvious that the message that the United States Supreme Court is sending is that a Search Warrant should be secured before any crime scene search is undertaken and this is especially true regarding circumstances such as those previously described. However, my position has always been and is still now when I teach legal update classes that there is no reason why you cannot get a warrant unless there is something so devastating about to occur that totally precludes it.

In these decisions the United States Supreme Court has also made it pretty clear that there is no Homicide Scene Exception to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution’s right to privacy. The message from the court is simple and needs to be adhered to which simply is that
Any EXTENDED SEARCH of a HOMICIDE SCENE, without consent or exigent circumstances requires a search warrant.

Homicides involving common-law relationships, husbands and wives, or family disputes may necessitate that the detective secure a warrant before a premises can be searched. · The professional homicide detective must be aware of the legal requirements for a warrant dependent upon both Supreme Court decisions as well as state law and case law within their own jurisdictional purview. An additional consideration is the dynamics of the event, which may present legitimate search warrant exceptions. The courts have recognized certain circumstances, which allow for exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant.

These exceptions are:

- Emergency or exigent circumstances
- Evidence in plain view
- Post arrest search of an individual for weapons and contraband, and
- Consent.
 
The use of the example of homicide cases here is presented to demonstrate one of the most heinous types of cases possible and notwithstanding the loss of life the court still advises that the law enforcement official must obtain a warrant for the search to be legal and not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the individuals whose home or apartment is being searched.  

                                                               References
Mincey v. Arizona 437 US 385 (1978).
Thomas v. Louisiana 469 US 17 (1984).
Flippo v. West Virginia 98 US 8770 (1999).