Document: 412 U.S. 291 93 S.Ct. 2000 36 L.Ed.2d 900 Hoyt C. CUPP, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner,v.Daniel P. MURPHY. No. 72—212. Argued March 20, 1973. Decided May 29, Syllabus. Over respondent's protest and without a warrant, police in the course of station-house questioning connection with murder took samples from fingernails discovered evidence used to convict him. Respondent had come station house voluntarily not been arrested, although he was detained there probable cause believe that committed murder. In reversing District Court's denial habeas corpus, Court Appeals concluded that, absent arrest or other exigent circumstances, search unconstitutional. Held: view detention upon cause, very limited intrusion undertaken preserve highly evanescent violative Fourth Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 239—296. 9 Cir., 461 F.2d 1006, reversed. Thomas H. Denney, Salem, Or., for petitioner. Howard R. Lonergan, Portland, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 The respondent, Daniel Murphy, convicted by jury an court second-degree his wife. victim died strangulation her home city abrasions lacerations were found on throat. There no sign break-in robbery. Word sent who then living Upon receiving message, Murphy promptly telephoned Portland came into questioning. Shortly after arrival at house, where met retained counsel, noticed dark spot finger. Suspecting might be dried blood knowing is often under assailant's fingernails, asked if they could take sample scrapings fingernails. He refused. Under proceeded samples, which turned out contain traces skin cells, fabric victim's nightgown. This incriminating admitted trial. 2 respondent appealed conviction, claiming fingernail product unconstitutional affirmed Or.App. 251, 465 P.2d 900, we denied certiorari, 400 944, 91 246, 27 248. commenced present action federal corpus relief. Court, unreported decision, petition, Ninth Circuit reversed, 1006. assumed presence arrest, but held absence Id., 1007. We granted 409 1036, 515, 34 485, consider constitutional question presented. 3 trial court, Appeals, Federal all agreed time him scraped As said, 4 'At detectives these knew: 5 'The bedroom wife dead showed signs disturbance, fact tneded indicate killer known rather than burglar stranger. 6 decedent's son, only person night, did have made observed 7 defendant deceased stormy marriage get along well. 8 had, fact, night left drove back central enter see volunteered great deal information being asked, yet expressed concern curiosity about wife's fate.' Or.App., 259—260, P.2d, 904. disagree conclusion make F.2d, 1007, nor do we. 10 It also undisputed obtain warrant formally 'arrest' as term understood law.1 long enough scrapings, 'arrested' until approximately one month later. Nevertheless, against will constituted seizure person, Amendment guarantee freedom 'unreasonable searches seizures' clearly implicated, cf. United States v. Dionisio, 410 1, 764, 35 67; Terry Ohio, 392 19, 88 1868, 1878, 20 889. said Davis Mississippi, 394 721, 726 727, 89 1394, 1397, 22 676. 'Nothing more clear meant prevent wholesale intrusions personal security our citizenry, whether termed 'arrests' 'investigatory detentions." 11 Davis, fingerprints obtained during brief persons seized dragnet procedure, inadmissible evidence. Though recognized fingerprinting 'involves none probing individual's private life thoughts marks interrogation search,' id., S.Ct., 1398, case 'Investigatory seizures would subject unlimited numbers innocent harassment ignominy incident involuntary detention,' 726, 1397. 12 this case, like briefly house. Yet, here, was, three courts found, vice therefore before us. Cf. supra. 13 inquiry does end however, because subjected well person. Unlike voice exemplar supra, handwriting Mara, 774, 99, went beyond mere 'physical characteristics . constantly exposed public,' 14, 771, type 'severe, though brief, cherished security' scrutiny. 24—25, 1882. 14 constitutionally permissible principles Chimel California, 395 752, 2034, 23 685. stands line cases recognizing exception requirement when valid arrest. 755—762, 2035 2039. basis made, it reasonable officer expect arrestee use any weapons may attempt destroy possession. 762—763, 2039—2040. scope warrantless must commensurate rationale excepts requirement.2 Thus, Chimel, area 'into reach.' 763, 2040. 15 Where formal us, less hostile likely conspicuous, immediate steps Since knows going released, instead concerned diverting attention away himself. Accordingly, hold full justified warrant. But such search. 16 At obviously aware detectives' suspicions. warning official suspicion provides, sufficiently apprised suspected role crime motivate what attracting further attention. Testimony indicated refused consent taking put hands behind appeared rub them together. pockets, 'metallic sound, keys change rattling' heard. subjecting necessary Schmerber 384 757, 86 1826, 908. 17 On facts considering existence detention, ready destructibility evidence, cannot say violated judgment 18 Reversed. 19 WHITE joins issue decided here foreclosed remand has never considered. MARSHALL, concurring. 21 I join my Brother STEWART. Murphy's movement unquestionably acquiesce refusal permit protected Amendment, amount law. See Ore.Rev.Stat. § 133.210. police, understanding this, not, example, magistrate state law requires 133.550.1 before, 'It quite plain governs 'seizures' eventuate trip prosecution crime—'arrests' traditional terminology. whenever accosts individual restrains walk away, 'seized' person.' 16, 1877, 889 (1968). n. 26, 1879, 1882; Sibron New York, 40, 67, 1889, 1904, 917 argues, unlawful satisfy 'the general authorization judicial advance 728, 676 (1969). 1879. saw thumbnail, remembered seen throat deceased, reason detain purpose scrapings. Then, brought interest dealing suspect alerted desire inspect point, way status quo while sought, good alter unless prevented doing so. assure preservation simply placing close surveillance, nature And, purposes analysis, detaining sought much scraped. If permits stop-and-frisk specific articulable infer commit crime, armed dangerous, arrest,2 circumstances case.3 24 argument is, course, troublesome one, and, done inclined illegal. For, principle strictly terms justify See, e.g., U.S., 19—20, 1878—1879; 685 When detained, particularized interests initiate criminal proceeding detain. investigate occasion detention. their precisely led restrict freedom; searched extensively occurred. Indeed, view, barred extensive search, relating or, light involved strangulation, weapon 25 realize exceptions established 'powerful hydraulic pressures bear heavily water down guarantees,' 39, 1889 (Douglas, J., dissenting), those same lead later expansion narrow confines are established, Adams Williams, 407 143, 161—162, 92 1921, 1930, 1931, 32 612 (1972) (Marshall, dissenting). precise scraping emphasize, conducted extremely scope, its tied closely reasons justifying understanding, 26 BLACKMUN, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, today existed, officers destructible. restricts quest (respondent's) fingernails.' 28 While opinion, so says applies made. Far different factors, govern lawful 29 POWELL, REHNQUIST join, 30 entertained attack conviction ground violation wrongly For set forth concurring Schneckloth Bustamonte, 218, 250, 2041, 2059, 854. think claim properly available extent ascertaining prisoner afforded fair opportunity raise adjudicated courts. today, reaches merits claim, opinion. 31 DOUGLAS, dissenting part. agree existed making vanish free move about. magistrate. None now holds unnecessary. 33 Whether difficult determine record. reached. should determination question. clouded mind covered 685, relies, states, defines custody answer crime.' No stated Johnson States, 333 10, 5, 68 367, 370, L.Ed. 436. 'State determines validity arrests warrant.' fours 676, sole obtaining charge crime. Like investigative seizure. 889, rejected limit conduct 'if stop short something called 'technical arrest' 'full-blown search." why day creates nagging doubt reach Why allowed roam will, man, next month? evolving pattern conspiracy offense induce turn loose order tail suspects net. here. What decision comes to, fear, 'suspicion' Yet 'probable cause' applicable Amendment. Mapp 367 643, 81 1684, 1081. Suspicion sufficient save situation Chimel. That designed (see 769—770, 1835, 908) protect assaults through within easy accused zone destruction. However, not. governed rule rights 'against even result achieved way.' Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385, 392, 40 182, 183, 64 319. issued Coolidge Hampshire, 403 443, 453, 2022, 2031, 564, neutral detached required Constitution.' And Mancusi DeForte, 364, 371, 2120, 2125, 1154. 369, 'When right privacy reasonably yield rule, officer, policeman Government enforcement agent.' officers, smelling opium, entrance, given. entry, discovering occupant, arrested her. 'Thus obliged do.' 16—17, 370. 37 either. Boyd 116 616, 524, 746, stated, related Self-Incrimination Clause Fifth.* A suspicion, sustained, gives otherwise Fifth regard said: '(T)he fourth fifth Amendments run almost each other.' 630, 532. say: 'For condemned amendment always compelling man give himself, amendment; 'in witness himself,' amendment, throws seizure' meaning amendment. unable perceive man's books papers substantially intent terms.' 633, 534. 38 can suspect's Rochin 342 165, 72 205, 96 183. Moreover, guarantees people secure persons.' Scraping invasion tolerable, speaking, showing warrant; sought; preserved perishable sought. rid it; plainly 39 Our approval shortcut taken avoid typical age. Erosions usually start slowly, dramatic onsets. 'illegitimate practices first footing silent approaches slight deviations legal modes procedure.' 635, 535. considered Appeals. record us arguments based since month's delay. weight scales illegally simple means—a wholly war enshrined adversary system. 41 BRENNAN, 42 Without effecting seeking magistrate, scrape destructible upholding engrafts another, albeit limited, requirement. Before serious step legitimating merely cause—without arrest—we ought certain existed. Here, Douglas convincingly demonstrates '(w)hether record.' Ante, 301. question, proper decide instance need decide, disputed stage litigation, instant 'our dual one—whether officer's inception, interference place.' Thus require relevant time. Jones 357 493, 499—500, 78 1253, 1257, 1514 (1958); 477—481, 2043—2045, 564 (1971). proceed assumption. open remand. DOUGLAS suggests violate privilege self-incrimination. confined situations secured defendant's 'affirmative cooperation,' 31, 780—781, 67 (1973). * My MARSHALL cooperation. extends boundaries involving forced giving blood, 761, 1830, 908, disagreed. 67.

Category: 0