Mincey v. Arizona
- Decided
- June 21, 1978
- Docket
- 77-5353
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,849 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that involuntary statements, as opposed to statements made in technical.violation of Miranda, could not even be admitted for impeachment purposes — United States v. Charles Thomas Dickerson, Washington Legal Foundation Safe Streets Coalition, Amici Curiae (1999)
- holding that involuntary statements, as opposed to statements made in technical violation of Miranda, could not even be admitted for impeachment purposes — United States v. Charles Thomas Dickerson, Washington Legal Foundation Safe Streets Coalition, Amici Curiae (1999)
- holding that statements taken in violation of Miranda are not admissible for any purpose where they were involuntary or the product of coercion — Randolph Parsad v. Charles Greiner, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the afternoon of October 28, 1974, undercover police officer Barry Headricks of the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad knocked on the door of an apartment in Tucson, Ariz., occupied by the petitioner, Rufus Mincey. Earlier in the day, Officer Headricks had allegedly arranged to purchase a quantity of heroin from Mincey and had left, ostensibly to obtain money. On his return he was accompanied by nine other plainclothes policemen and a deputy county attorney. The door was opened by John Hodgman, one of three acquaintances of Mincey who were in the living room of the apartment. Officer Headricks slipped inside and moved quickly into the bedroom. Hodgman attempted to slam the door in order to keep the other officers from entering, but was pushed back against the wall. As the police entered the apartment, a rapid volley of shots was heard from the bedroom. Officer Headricks emerged and collapsed on the floor. When other officers entered the bedroom they found Mincey lying on the floor, wounded and semiconscious. Officer Headricks died a few hours later in the hospital.
The petitioner was indicted for murder, assault,[1] and three [*388] counts of narcotics offenses. He was tried at a single trial and convicted on all the charges. At his trial and on appeal, he contended that evidence used against him had been unlawfully-seized from his apartment without a warrant and that statements used to impeach his credibility were inadmissible because they had not been made voluntarily. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the murder and assault convictions on state-law grounds,[2] but affirmed the narcotics convictions. 115 Ariz. 472, 566 P. 2d 273. It held that the warrantless search of a homicide scene is permissible under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and that Mincey’s statements were voluntary. We granted certiorari to consider these substantial constitutional questions. 434 U. S. 902.
Cite this
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.