Cupp Vs. Murphy Case: Chimel V. California

556 Words2 Pages

While there are cases where the court followed the amendment to the letter, there were others where the amendment was not interpreted fully in some aspects. In the Cupp v. Murphy case, “the police noticed a dark spot on the Respondent’s finger. The police thought the spot could have been dried blood and during the questioning asked the Respondent if they could have a sample of what was under his fingernail. He refused. Irrespective of his protests, the police took a sample. It turned out that there were traces of skin, blood and fabric from the deceased’s nightgown in the sample. The evidence was admitted at trial.” (Casebriefs) Cupp had volunteered to be questioned after hearing that his wife had been murdered. During the questioning, he was asked to be searched which he refused but was searched any way. …show more content…

California]. Chimel stands in a long line of cases recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement when a search is incident to a valid arrest. The basis for this exception is that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for a police officer to expect the arrestee to use any weapons he may have and to attempt to destroy any incriminating evidence then in his possession.” (Casebriefs) In this case, Chimel v. California, it was decided that if a police officer had reasonable suspicion that a suspect was suspicion they could arrest and conduct a search. Unlike the situation in this case, the police did not have a warrant for Cupp’s arrest. Nor did they have at that moment any reason to arrest him. Thus, the situation is a bit different than the one previously. While the judges may have caught a murderer, their actions did not respect the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Cupp was seized, violating his protection from unwarranted seizures. This case was not a correct interpretation of the Fourth

More about Cupp Vs. Murphy Case: Chimel V. California

Open Document