Document: 469 U.S. 17 105 S.Ct. 409 83 L.Ed.2d 246 Lillian THOMPSONv.LOUISIANA. No. 83-6775. Nov. 26, 1984. Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1985. See 1197, 981. PER CURIAM. 1 In this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld validity of a warrantless "murder scene" search petitioner's home. Because holding is in direct conflict with our opinion Mincey v. Arizona, 437 385, 98 2408, 57 290 (1978), we reverse. 2 * The states facts as follows: 3 "On May 18, 1982, several deputies from Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Department arrived at [petitioner's] home response to report by daughter homicide. entered house, made cursory and discovered husband dead gunshot wound bedroom [petitioner] lying unconscious another due an apparent drug overdose. According daughter, had shot her husband, then ingested quantity pills suicide attempt, then, changing mind, called informed situation requested help. contacted police. Upon their arrival, admitted them into house directed rooms containing victim. immediately transported hospital secured scene. Thirty-five minutes later two members homicide unit Office conducted follow-up investigation attempted suicide. 4 "The investigators residence commenced what they described motion suppress hearing 'general exploratory for evidence crime.' During search, which lasted approximately hours, detectives examined each room house." 448 So.2d 666, 668 (1984). 5 Petitioner was subsequently indicted second-degree murder husband. She moved three items during including pistol found inside chest drawers same deceased's body, torn up note wastepaper basket adjoining bathroom, letter (alleged be note) folded envelope Christmas card on top drawers. All "general evidence" who scene 35 after petitioner sent hospital. ibid. By time those arrived, officers originally already searched premises other victims or suspects. Mincey, supra, U.S., 392, S.Ct., 2413. testified that secure warrant before commencing see So.2d, 668, no one given consent App. C Pet. Cert. 7-8, 16, 19-20 (transcript testimony Detectives Zinna Masson suppression hearing). 6 trial court denied suppress. However, granted reconsideration partially reversed its former decision, gun were obtained violation Fourth Amendment therefore must suppressed. Appeal State's application writ review. A sharply divided held all seized admissible. II 7 As stated United States Chadwick, 433 1, 9, 97 2476, 2482, 53 538 (1977), "in area do not write clean slate." long line cases, has stressed "searches outside judicial process, without prior approval judge magistrate, are per se unreasonable under Amendment—subject only few specifically established well delineated exceptions." Katz States, 389 347, 357, 88 507, 514, 19 576 (1967) (footnotes omitted). This principle freshly coined occasion Katz, but rather represented Court's longstanding understanding relationship between Clauses Amendment.1 nn. 18 19, 19. Since recognized existence additional exceptions. See, e.g., Donovan Dewey, 452 594, 101 2534, 69 262 (1981); Martinez-Fuerte, 428 543, 96 3074, 49 1116 (1976); South Dakota Opperman, 364, 3092, 1000 (1976). have consistently reaffirmed cases exceptions requirement requires interposition neutral detached magistrate police "persons, houses, papers, effects" citizens. Welsh Wisconsin, 466 740, 748-750, 104 2091, 2096-2098, 80 732 (1984); Place, 462 696, 701-702, 103 2637, 2641-2642, 77 110 (1983); Ross, 456 798, 824-825, 102 S.Ct 2157, 2172, 72 572 (1982); Steagald 451 204, 211-212, 1642, 1647, 68 38 390, 2412; Coolidge New Hampshire, 403 443, 474-475, 91 2022, 2042-43, 29 564 (1971) (plurality opinion); Vale Louisiana, 399 30, 34, 90 1969, 1971, 26 (1970); Terry Ohio, 392 20, 1868, 1879, 20 889 (1968). 8 Although case may probable cause premises, it undisputed did obtain warrant.2 Therefore, valid, fall within narrow requirement. unanimously rejected contention Warrant Clause exception." noted make entries where "they reasonably believe person need immediate aid," id., 2413, prompt if there killer still premises," ibid., "the 'murder exception' . inconsistent Fourteenth Amendments—that Mincey's apartment constitutionally permissible simply because recently occurred there." Id., 395, 2414. squarely point instant case. B 9 distinguish ways. involved 4-day while took hours day murder. 671. agree scope intrusion certainly greater than here, nothing turned length taken date conducted. 2-hour general remains significant privacy subject constraints—including requirement—of Amendment. 10 also believed "diminished" expectation home, thus validating otherwise would been unconstitutional. telephoned request assistance. let residence. These facts, according court, demonstrated diminished dwelling legitimated search.3 11 Petitioner's attempt get medical assistance does part. To sure, action justified authorities seizing plain-view doctrine offer addition, justify seizure limited "victim-or-suspect" discussed Mincey. issue here plain view assisting hospital, nor completed arrived. call help can hardly seen invitation public converted sort place necessary. diminished-expectation-of-privacy argument fails Mincey.4 12 State contends sufficient element decision validate consensual, although attempts support reference daughter's "apparent authority" over when she permitted enter. ordinarily factual unsuitable consideration first instance, express whether might consensual. both explicitly received search. Any claim valid measured against standards Matlock, 415 164, 94 988, 39 242 (1974), Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 93 2041, 36 854 (1973). III 13 For reasons above, leave proceed forma pauperis granted, petition certiorari judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings opinion. 14 It so ordered. right people persons, effects, searches seizures, shall violated, Warrants issue, upon cause, supported Oath affirmation, particularly describing searched, persons things seized." Const., Amdt. 4. Indeed Chief Justice Dixon's dissent reads entirety "I respectfully dissent. take legal warrant." 673 seemed fact "both parties authority [petitioner husband] either apparently grave condition," 671, some way premises. Yet neither unavailability death any bearing continuing interests. court's closely resembles 391-392, 2412-13.

Category: 0