Legal Bulletin: Murder Scene Exception (PDF)

/F VALID LEGAL BULLETINS http://mfoweb/Legal%20A£fairs/Legal%20Bulletins/9-4-97/LB 1 .htn LEGAL BULLETIN LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION-LEGAL RESEARCH UNIT VOLUME X, ISSUE 2 JUNE 28, 1985 NO "MURDER SCENE" EXCEPTION TO FOURTH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT REAFFIRME...

/F VALID LEGAL BULLETINS http://mfoweb/Legal%20A£fairs/Legal%20Bulletins/9-4-97/LB 1 .htn LEGAL BULLETIN LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND RESEARCH DIVISION-LEGAL RESEARCH UNIT VOLUME X, ISSUE 2 JUNE 28, 1985 NO "MURDER SCENE" EXCEPTION TO FOURTH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT REAFFIRMED BY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT The United States Supreme Court in Thompson v. Louisiana, (1984) 83 L. Ed. 2d 246, has reaffirmed that there is no "murder scene" exception to the Fourth Amendment which would permit a warrantless search of a major crime scene. FACTS The defendant, after fatally shooting her husband, ingested a quantity of pills in an attempt to commit suicide. The defendant then changed her mind and telephoned her daughter for help, and the daughter telephoned the police. When the police arrived, the daughter admitted them into the house and directed them to the rooms where the defendant and the murder victim were located. The police immediately transported the unconscious defendant to a hospital and secured the scene. About 35 minutes later, two homicide investigators arrived and, for approximately two hours, conducted a general exploratory search for evidence of the homicide and the attempted suicide in each room of the house. The investigators did not have a search warrant, and no one had given them consent to conduct the search. Following the defendant's indictment for second degree murder of her husband, she moved to suppress three items of evidence discovered by the investigators during the search of the residence. The evidence included a pistol found inside a chest of drawers in the same room as the murder victim's body, a tom note found in a waste basket in an adjoining bathroom, and a folded suicide note found inside an envelope containing a Christmas card which was on the top of a chest of drawers. X OF VALID LEGAL BULLETINS http://mfoweb/Legal%20Affairs/Legal%20Bulletms/9-4-97/LB 1 .h The trial court ultimately granted part of the defendant’s motion ruling that the pistol and suicide note were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, must be suppressed. The prosecutor appealed and the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision ruling that the warrantless search of defendant's residence did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The defendant then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the appeal and ruled that the warrantless search and seizure conducted at the defendant's home violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING The U.S. Supreme Court based its decision in Thompson on their ruling in Mincey v. Arizona, (1978) 57 L. Ed. 2d 290. In Mincey the Court rejected the contention that one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is a "murder scene exception." (See Legal Bulletin Volume III, Issue 3, dated September 25, 1978). The Court concluded that the intrusion of the defendant’s privacy rights was greater in Mincey (a warrantless four-day search) than in Thompson (a warrantless two-hour search conducted 35 minutes after the victim was discovered). Nevertheless, a two-hour warrantless general search remains a significant intrusion on the defendant's privacy rights and therefore violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also concluded that the defendant’s attempt to get medical assistance is not evidence that she had consented to give up any privacy right. The police, under the plain view doctrine, would be able to seize evidence that they observed while in the defendant's residence to offer her medical assistance. In addition, the plain view doctrine would justify seizure of evidence observed during the limited "victim-or-suspect" search permitted by the Mincey decision. This was not the case in Thompson. Here the evidence was not discovered in plain view while police were assisting thedefendant to the hospital, nor was it discovered during the "victim-or-suspect" search that had been completed by the time the investigators arrived. Although the Mincey and Thompson cases deal with a residence, the same principles apply to any location where there is a recognizable expectation of privacy. This could include business establishments or limited areas out-of-doors, such as a backyard. PRACTICAL APPLICATION The police are still free to seize any evidence that is in plain view during the course of their search within "arms reach" of the suspect or in other rooms where additional victims or suspects may reasonably be located [People v. Block, (1971) 6 C. 3d 239). Objects retrieved from closed drawers or small containers which are not within the arms reach of an arrestee or which are too small to contain a suspect or victim will probably be deemed inadmissible if seized without a warrant. When officers determine that evidence may be present in areas beyond the scope of a cursory search of the premises for additional victims or suspects, they may do what is reasonable to secure the location in order to prevent the disappearance of evidence of the crime while waiting for the issuance of a _LLD LbUAL BULLETINS http://mfoweb/Legal%20Aliairs/Legal%2UBulletins/9-4-97/LB 1 .htn ,earch warrant [People v. Freeny, (1974) 37 C.A, 3d 20). The officers should have a reasonable belief that evidence may be destroyed if the premises are not secured. If there is a person at the scene of the crime who has the authority and consents to a search, no warrant would be necessary to conduct a more extensive search. If the victim, in a homicide, was the resident of the premises in which the victim was found, it does not mean that the premises can be searched automatically. As in Thompson, the rights of other possible residents may be violated, whether they are present or not. If the identity of the victim is unknown and it cannot readily be established that the victim is a resident of the premises, officers may not conduct an in-depth search of the premises simply to establish identity. The fact that the victim cannot be linked to the location of the crime would be an indication that someone else may reside there. The privacy rights of this unknown person may be violated if the residence was searched without a search warrant, absent an exigency. SUMMARY • There is no "murder scene" exception of the Fourth Amendment. • Officers may still make cursory searches for additional victims or suspects who may reasonably be present. Officers may still search the area within "arms reach" of an arrestee. VOLUME X, ISSUE 2 • -J- JUNE 28, 1985 hems may be seized, if they are in plain view from an area where officers have a right to be. • Officers may reasonably secure the premises to avoid the destruction of evidence until a warrant can be obtained. • A warrant should be obtained to search any premises, even if it is the residence of the victim, unless an exigency exists or consent is given. Note: During business hours, search warrants should be obtained through the District Attorney's Office. In emergency situations, when it is not practical to seek a written warrant, officers should contact their divisional detective unit for assistance in obtaining a telephonic search warrant. If the divisional detective unit is dosed. Detective Headquarters Division should be contacted for assistance (Manual Section 4/742.60).