Legal Brief
Citation: Cupp v. Murphy 412 U.S. 291 (1973)
Merits: Defendant Daniel Murphy voluntarily appeared at the police station for an interview after being informed of the murder of his wife, who lived in a separate apartment. During the interview, detectives noticed blood on the defendant’s finger. Mrs. Murphy was suffocated and strangled, and the detectives suspected the defendant as the killer. The detectives asked Murphy if they could conduct a fingernail scrapings procedure. Mr. Murphy refused. The detectives proceeded to take the specimen forcibly, without a warrant. The analysis revealed blood and skin of his wife under his fingernails. Defendant was arrested. The medical result was admitted for the jury’s consideration, and consequently, Murphy was convicted and sentenced for the murder of his wife. The defendant brought an appellate claim with the Oregon Court of Appeals claiming that the fingernail scrapings were the result of an unconstitutional search under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Appellate Procedure: The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The defendant proceeded to file a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by the federal district court. The defendant appealed the denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court reversed the lower court’s ruling and concluded that the search violated the requirements of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because there was no arrest or exigent circumstances present to legitimize the search, and there was no probable cause present to justify the search of the defendant. The state appealed the appeals court holding, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue: Whether the taking of the specimen was consistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution given that Mr. Murphy was not officially arrested and was subjected to the procedure without a warrant being issued.
Argument: The defendant argued that the search was a violation of the constitution as there was no probable cause, exigent circumstances, and no valid warrant. The state argued that the search was constitutional as probable cause existed to validate the search.
Reasoning: Although the Court had previously held that fingerprints obtained during a brief detention, much like that of defendant, was inadmissible without probable cause, the search and seizure in the present case was constitutional as a limited search incident to arrest, thus preventing a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. When a defendant is aware that an arrest may soon follow, police may conduct a search to prevent the defendant from possibly destroying incriminating evidence.
Application: The defendant was aware he was a suspect in the murder of his wife, thus he could have had the motivation to destroy any incriminating evidence, including the blood and skin of his wife beneath his fingernails. He refused to allow a fingernail sampling and when asked for the sampling, he took certain actions with his hands in an attempt to destroy the evidence. He rubbed his hands behind his back and placed them in his pocket with this keys.
Conclusion: The search, consisting of obtaining the blood sample, was limited in scope and was necessary to preserve the evidence in this case. The Supreme Court of the United States annulled the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the defendant’s guilt.
Dicta: The detention of a suspect in order to obtain fingerprints is a much lesser intrusion of privacy than other kinds of police searches. In certain narrowly defined circumstances, fingerprints can be taken without probable cause.
References
Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (United States Supreme Court 1973). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/412/291/case.html
