Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Cupp v. Murphy case brief (412 U.S. 291)

Cupp v. Murphy
412 U.S. 291 (1973)
FACTS
-Murphy; the D's wife was murdered by strangulation.
-The police called the defendant to the police station. Police officers noticed a spot on defendant's fingernail which they suspected to be dried blood. They asked the defendant if they can take his fingernail samples and defendant refused.
-After some struggle, the samples were taken and defendant was released.
-Victim's body cells were found in the sample and defendant was convicted for his wife’s murder.





ISSUE
:
-Did the officers need a warrant before taking the finger nail samples? 
-Murphy was only brought in for questioning, he was arrested a month later based on the lab reports of the blood removed for underneath his nails.

HOLDING
When police have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment permit the limited search of a suspect during a brief detention in a station house when there exists a risk that the suspect may destroy readily destructible evidence and the scope of the search is limited to vindicating this interest.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-Trial court convicted Daniel Murphy of second degree murder of his estranged wife based upon blood and cells police were able to lift from beneath his fingernails at the police station.
-The court of appeals reversed on the basis that even though the officers had probable cause, they had no exigent circumstances and they should have gotten a warrant before searching the defendant's person.
-At this point the state appeals the reversal of the trial court ruling.

ANALYSIS

-Court used Chimel v. California to rule that when there are chances that the defendant might destroy the evidence which is under his control, the officers can save this evidence without obtaining a warrant. -Court considered the fact that the defendant tried to destroy the evidence in the current case by rubbing his hands and the officers had the right to save the evidence from being destroyed.
-The ruling of the lower court was reversed.
-When Murphy was at the station house and was asked about the blood under his fingernail he became nervous and there was no doubt he would attempt to destroy it, if the police did not take it there.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. Montana Case Brief: Key Takeaways for Law Students and Legal Researchers

Case Brief: Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. Montana, 368 P.3d 1131 (Mont. 2016) Court Supreme Court of Montana Citation 368 P.3d 11...