Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

No Murder Scene Exception to the 4th Amendment

August 23, 2011 by David Shirley

by Terry Bowman, Rains Lucia Stern, PC

Most exceptions to the warrant requirement are ingrained into every peace officer’s brain. For example, you understand and recognize that no warrant is required when there is consent, when items are in plain view, or when there are exigent circumstances. Additionally, the crime of homicide will nearly always constitute an emergency and justify law enforcement’s initial warrantless entry to the scene.

However, recently we have encountered confusion about whether officers need a warrant to process a murder scene. In other words, a homicide has occurred in the suspect’s home and a protective sweep has been conducted revealing no evidence in plain view. Now, the homicide investigators need to get to work and the crime scene needs to be processed. Do the officers need either the suspect’s consent or a search warrant to process the crime scene? You bet. The three main United States Supreme Court cases are summarized below:

1. These warrants are based on a US Supreme Court case (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 437 US 385) and are often referred to as “Mincey warrants.” Mincey murdered an undercover narcotics officer and homicide detectives ripped up carpets and collected 200-300 pieces of evidence over a four-day search of the home. The Supreme Court found no exigent circumstances and no indication that evidence would be lost, destroyed, or removed during the time required to obtain a search warrant and concluded that the seriousness of the offense under investigation itself does not create exigent circumstances.

2. In Thompson v. Louisiana (1984) 469 US 17, a woman killed her husband and attempted suicide (with pills) then changed her mind and called her daughter for help. Sheriff’s Deputies were admitted into the home by the daughter and they transported the suspect to the hospital and secured the scene. Thirty-five minutes later, homicide investigators arrived at the house and conducted a two hour “exploratory” search of the home, during which they found evidentiary items. The Court found that while the homicide investigators may have had probable cause to search the premises there was no exception to the warrant requirement and the evidence was suppressed.

3. In Flippo v. West Virginia (1999) 98 US 8770, a minister vacationing with his wife at a cabin in a state park called 911 to report that they had been attacked. The police arrived and found the minister waiting outside the cabin with minor injuries. The officers entered the cabin and found the body of the minister’s wife with fatal head wounds. The officers closed off the area, took the minister to the hospital, and when a police photographer arrived several hours later, the officers re-entered the home and proceeded to “process the crime scene.” For over sixteen hours they took photographs, collected evidence, and searched through the contents of the cabin. During the search photographs of the minister’s gay lover were discovered in a briefcase and were introduced as evidence of motive in the subsequent homicide trial. The State Court’s finding that the search was valid because it was a “homicide crime scene” was ultimately overturned the decision because it conflicted with Mincey.

To summarize, a murderer is still entitled to a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” So, while the police may make warrantless entries if they reasonably believe a person needs immediate aid and may make a protective sweep, a search is not constitutionally permissible simply because a homicide has recently occurred on the premises.

Disclaimer: Case law and analysis can change over time. The information in this article is accurate as of the date the article was written and should not constitute legal advice. Always consult with an attorney.

Filed Under: Bulletins

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.