Connection lost
Server error
Mincey v. Arizona Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Police conducted a four-day warrantless search of an apartment after a fatal shooting. The Supreme Court rejected a “murder scene exception” to the Fourth Amendment and also found that statements made by the wounded suspect from his ICU bed were involuntary and inadmissible.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the seriousness of a crime, such as homicide, does not create a categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. It also affirms that involuntary statements, determined by the totality of the circumstances, are inadmissible for any purpose, including impeachment.
Mincey v. Arizona Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
An undercover police officer was killed during a narcotics raid at the apartment of petitioner Rufus Mincey. After the shooting, police secured the scene and Mincey, who was seriously wounded, was taken to a hospital. Homicide detectives then arrived and conducted an exhaustive, four-day warrantless search of the entire apartment, seizing 200 to 300 items. No warrant was ever obtained. While Mincey was in the intensive care unit, suffering from debilitating injuries and encumbered by medical tubes, a detective interrogated him for several hours. Mincey repeatedly requested a lawyer and asked for the questioning to stop, but the detective persisted. At trial, evidence from the search was admitted, and Mincey’s statements from the hospital were used to impeach his testimony. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the narcotics convictions, holding that the warrantless search of a homicide scene was a reasonable exception to the warrant requirement and that the statements were voluntary.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the extensive, four-day warrantless search of a homicide scene and the use for impeachment of statements obtained from the petitioner during a persistent hospital interrogation while he was seriously wounded violate his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights?
Yes. The judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed. The warrantless Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the extensive, four-day warrantless search of a homicide scene and the use for impeachment of statements obtained from the petitioner during a persistent hospital interrogation while he was seriously wounded violate his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights?
Conclusion
Mincey v. Arizona stands as a crucial precedent that firmly rejects categorical Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ul
Legal Rule
The Fourth Amendment does not permit a categorical “murder scene exception” to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscin
Legal Analysis
The Court addressed two distinct constitutional violations. First, regarding the Fourth Amendment, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptat
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Supreme Court rejected the creation of a “murder scene exception”
