Citation network
Cupp Vs. Murphy
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 29, 1973
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 291 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Cupp v. MurphySearch
-
U.S. 291 (1973) Cupp v. MurphySearch
-
is clearly implicated, cf. United States v. DionisioSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 392 U. S. 19 . As the Court said in Davis v. MississippiSearch
-
the murder. The vice of the detention in Davis is therefore absent in the case before us. Cf. United States v. DionisioSearch
-
as a seizure of his person. Unlike the fingerprinting in Davis, the voice exemplar obtained in United States v. DionisioSearch
-
supra, or the handwriting exemplar obtained in United States v. MaraSearch
-
that is subject to constitutional scrutiny. Terry v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 24 -25. We believe this search was constitutionally permissible under the principles of Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
limited search necessary to preserve the highly evanescent evidence they found under his fingernails, cf. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
As the Court stated in Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Sibron v. NewSearch
-
Davis v. MississippiSearch
-
U. S. 721 , 394 U. S. 728 (1969). See also Terry v. OhioSearch
-
from which they may infer that a person, who they suspect is about to commit a crime, is armed and dangerous, Terry v. OhioSearch
-
the scope of a search must be strictly limited in terms of the circumstances that justify the search. See, e.g., Terry v. OhioSearch
-
lead to later expansion of the exceptions beyond the narrow confines of the cases in which they are established, Adams v. WilliamsSearch
-
to determine whether the police were required to obtain a warrant for Murphy's arrest at the relevant time. Cf. Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
had been wrongly admitted at the state trial. For the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Schneckloth v. BustamonteSearch
-
is clouded in my mind because the police did not arrest Murphy until a month later. It is a case not covered by Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
No such arrest was made until a month after Murphy's fingernails were scraped. As we stated in Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
The case is therefore on all fours with Davis v. MississippiSearch
-
in this case, Davis involved an investigative seizure. In Davis, at 394 U. S. 727 , as in Terry v. OhioSearch
-
the requirement of the Fourth Amendment, which is applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
of searches incident to an arrest as was involved in Chimel. That exception is designed ( see Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 385 , 251 U. S. 392 . No warrant could have been issued by the police, for, as we held in Coolidge v. NewSearch
-
And see Mancusi v. DeForteSearch
-
U. S. 364 , 392 U. S. 371 . As stated in Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. at 333 U. S. 16 -17. It will not do here either. As Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 633 . The same can be said of incriminating evidence found under a suspect's fingernails. See Rochin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
evidence can be obtained only with the defendant's cooperation. But that extends even the boundaries set by Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of blood, 384 U. S. 757 , 384 U. S. 761 , with which my Brother MARSHALL disagrees. United States v. DionisioSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cupp v. MurphySearch
-
Cf. United States v. DionisioSearch
-
of Chimel v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Schmerber v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Adams v. WilliamsSearch
-
Cf. Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
As Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
See Rochin v. CaliforniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial