In the following case, a jury convicted Mr. Murphy of the murder of his estranged wife. When Murphy found out his wife was killed, he came in voluntarily so that he could speak with the police. Police detained Murphy for questioning, but did not place him under arrest. The police noticed a spot on Murphy’s hand that looked like blood. The police requested that Mr. Murphy let them take scrapings from under his fingernails. Murphy denied the request. The police then forcibly took the scrapings from under his fingernails. The evidence collected from the scrapings was a key component in the conviction of Mr. Murphy for the murder of his wife. The issue in Cupp v. Murphy is whether the search of Mr. Murphy was constitutional under the 4th and 14th Amendments of the United States. If Murphy proves that the search violated his Constitutional rights, the jury verdict could be overturned on appeal, and Murphy could be granted a new trial.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that all people have the right to be safe from illegal search and seizure of their home and person. This Amendment provides that unless there is an exceptionally compelling reason, or probable cause, an individual has the right to be free from the police searching their home and person (Legal Information Institute, 2011, pg. 1). Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968) surrounded the search and seizure of three individuals who were acting suspiciously. When the police officer stopped to question them, he frisked one individual and found a hidden pistol. Ultimately a jury convicted the individual for carrying a concealed weapon, but argued that the search and seizure was illegal under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the state court’s decision, stating that there is a difference between frisking and searching. The police officer had probable cause to frisk the individual because of the conspicuous nature of the individual’s behavior (FindLaw, 2011, pg. 1).
Furthermore, Murphy argued a violation of his Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals’ rights to due process, which means that all individuals have a right to a specific legal process. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) was instrumental in protecting the legal rights of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by protecting an individual’s right to counsel, even if he is unable to afford an attorney (Arnovitz, 2003). Although in Terry the Supreme Court affirmed the state court’s conviction, this occurred because it is not considered searching to frisk an individual who is exhibiting suspicious behavior. A search is considered to invade an individual’s home or person, and it is not invasive to “pat-down” an individual. Terry v. Ohio, supra. However, in the Murphy case, the invasion was invasive. It was not merely an exterior physical examination, but an invasive scraping under fingernails. Therefore, any evidence obtained under this search would be considered “fruits of the poisonous tree”, meaning evidence collected during an illegal search and seizure (Legal Information Institute, 2010, pg. 1).
The case of United States v. Patane, (02-1183) 542 U.S. 630 (2004); 304 F3d 1013, reversed and remanded, is a prime example of the conviction of an individual following an illegal search and seizure. In this case, Patane had a former paramour who had an order of protection against him. Patane his rights, Patane stated he knew them. The police stopped reading Patane his rights, and proceeded to search his home, where they found a weapon. The state court convicted Patane, but the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, stating that the evidence gained fell under the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine, thus making any evidence inadmissible (Legal Information Institute, 2011, pg. 1).
However, the police in the Murphy case did have probable cause to take action and search the suspect. The police noticed what looked like a spot of blood on Murphy’s fingernail, and they knew that if they were unable to get the fingernail scraping, there was a good possibility that Murphy would leave and clean under his nails, thus destroying any evidence that might be present. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) states that a police officer may search an individual if there is a possibility that by not doing so, evidence can be destroyed. (Justia, 2011, pg. 1).
Although the Court of Appeals stated that the search of Murphy was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court reversed the decision. Using the Chimel case law, the Supreme Court concluded that had Murphy been allowed to leave before the police could gather the evidence from under his fingernails, Murphy would have destroyed that evidence. Therefore, this may look like a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but exigent circumstances allowed the police officers to make the search (ACLU, n.d., pg 1).
Murphy also argued that police violated his rights under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. The argument is that Murphy was not under arrest at the time of the search and seizure of the fingernail scrapings. However, Murphy did have an attorney present during this detention, and Murphy was well aware that he was a suspect in the murder of his estranged wife.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 694 (1966), there were provisions created to protect an individual’s right to due process. Procedures must be followed. Murphy was not “Mirandized” and placed under arrest, but the police detained him for questioning. This alone is a violation of Murphy’s civil rights. Although Murphy was aware he was a suspect, this does not give the police the right to fail to inform him of his rights (Casebriefs, 2011, pg. 1). However, because the police did not arrest Murphy at that time, there was no need to Mirandize him. Additionally, the evidence gathered in the investigation could potentially exclude him from being the killer.
In Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, (1952), the Court did reverse a conviction upon the concept of violation of the right to due process. Upon probable cause, police entered Rochin’s home, whereupon he swallowed some pills. The police attempted to get the pills from Rochin’s mouth, and when they could not do so, they ordered stomach to be pumped. Rochin was not Mirandized. A jury convicted Rochin for possessing morphine. The Supreme Court reversed the state court’s decision because they determined the pills were “forcibly” removed from Rochin’s person (Findlaw, 2011, pg. 1). However, attorneys used the same argument in Breithaput v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 (1957) Findlaw, 2011, pg. 1).
In this case, Breithaput was unconscious after a vehicle accident in which three passengers in another vehicle died. The officers smelled alcohol on Breithaput. The officer ordered the doctor to draw blood to determine blood alcohol content. Defense attorneys argued this was a violation of due process because Breithaput was unconscious and, therefore, could not be Mirandized. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. It stated that this was not an intrusive personal action, and there was a probable cause to gain evidence through drawing blood. Therefore, the evidence was admissible. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that this evidence needed to be gathered for the good of the suspect and potentially rule out the fact that his blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, and therefore the evidence was admissible (Findlaw, 2011, pg. 1).
The creation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution occurred to protect individuals’ rights during arrest. These amendments protect individuals from being wrongfully convicted of a crime. Although these laws mean to protect the innocent, if law enforcement does not follow proper procedures, it means the guilty can go free.
Thankfully, the United States Constitution is flexible. In Murphy, the prosecution showed that although there was a search and seizure prior to Murphy’s arrest, they were well within the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment because Murphy would destroy the evidence when he left the police station. In addition, this evidence could have potentially ruled Murphy out as a suspect. Finally, although Murphy claimed that the police violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights because he was not Mirandized, the Supreme Court held that when the police gathered the fingernail scrapings they were essentially also attempting to retain evidence to rule Murphy out as a suspect. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the state court’s decision to convict Murphy of the murder of his wife.
References
Arnovitz, T. (2003). Gideon: then and now. (Gideon v. Wainwright) – Florida Bar Journal | HighBeam Research. Research – Articles – Journals | Research better, faster at HighBeam Research. Web.
CHIMEL V. CALIFORNIA, 395 U. S. 752 :: Volume 395 :: 1969 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. (n.d.). US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. Web.
Cupp v. Murphy – ACLU – ProCon.org. (n.d.). ACLU.ProCon.org – Is the ACLU good for America?. Web.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes. (n.d.). FindLaw: Cases and Codes. 2011. Web.
Fourth Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. 2011. Web.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree | LII / Legal Information Institute. (2010). LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. Web.
Gideon v. Wainwright at Infoplease.com. (n.d.). Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free online reference, research & homework help. Infoplease.com. Web.
Miranda v. Arizona | Casebriefs. (n.d.). Law Cases & Case Briefs for Students. 2011. Web.
UNITED STATES V. PATANE. (n.d.). LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. 2011. Web.