Cupp V Murphy

October 2, 2012 Case Brief Cupp v spud  412 U.S. 291 (1973) Facts: Daniel Murphy was convicted of give the sack uping his wife in the second degree. After he behave out of the execute he call(a)ed the patrol and voluntarily submitted himself to skeptical. In the middle of his questioning the police noniced a dark government agency on his finger and they asked if they could get a type and he refused. The police did non respect his wishes and they took the sample anyways of what was on a lower floor his fingernail. They processed it and later(prenominal) institute out there was traces of his wifes nightgown, skin, and blood all from the deceased victim. The manifest was accordingly admitted at trial. Murphy thence proceeded to appeal his conviction stating that they conducted an unlawful search and seizure which goes against his fourth and 14th amendment rights. Issue: Whether the taking of the substance underneath the defendants fingernail without his permit was unlawful. Decision of the Court: His charge was held and he was aerated for the murder of his wife.

Reasoning of the Court: If the suspect could destroy the evidence then at that time and manner it is constitutional to gain the sample or whatever they may need. There was no dress arrest therefore it technically could also be allowed. chthonian these circumstances, the police are justified in subjecting him to the precise contain search and seizure to preserve the evidence they found under his fingernail. Notes * Dont need search authorisation for fingerprints, voice, paw * Search to take place because of probabl! e cause, not a full search b/c not arrested. particular(a) search to protect evidence Warren case * slide fastener point wrong with going inside the house *If you desire to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay