Search

Search results

1. Mincey v. Arizona

   437 U.S. 385 Mincey v. Arizona (No. 77-5353) Argued: February 21, 1978 Decided: June 21, 1978___ ... on the door of an apartment in Tucson, Ariz., occupied by the petitioner, Rufus Mincey. Earlier in ... the day, Officer Headricks had allegedly arranged to purchase a quantity of heroin from Mincey and had ...

2. BRIGHAM CITY v. STUART

   injured or threatened with such injury. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385. This Court has repeatedly ... Amendment.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393 –394 (1978). One exigency obviating the requirement ... injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. Mincey, supra, at 392; see also Georgia ...

3. BOBBY v. DIXON

   §2254(d)(1). 2  The only case the Sixth Circuit cited on this issue was Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385 ... (1978). Mincey involved the “virtually continuous questioning of a seriously and painfully wounded man on ... simply nothing in the facts or reasoning of Mincey suggesting that any of Dixon’s statements were ...

4. BOBBY v. DIXON

   §2254(d)(1). 2  The only case the Sixth Circuit cited on this issue was Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385 ... (1978). Mincey involved the “virtually continuous questioning of a seriously and painfully wounded man on ... simply nothing in the facts or reasoning of Mincey suggesting that any of Dixon’s statements were ...

5. Arizona v. Fulminante

   Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398 (1978); Davis, supra, 384 U.S. at 741-742; Haynes, supra, 373 U.S. ... Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. at 398; New Jersey v. Portash, supra, 440 U.S. at 459; Rose v. Clark, supra, ... U.S. at 385-386; Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. at 320. Consequently, admission of coerced confessions may ...

6. United States v. Ross

   Justice Stewart for a unanimous Court in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390: [p825] The Fourth Amendment ...

7. CHAVEZ v. MARTINEZ

   questions. Cf. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385 (1978) (Court said of similar circumstances: “It is ... have thought constitutionally permissible. In Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385 (1978), appropriately ... wish not to be interrogated.” Mincey, 437 U. S., at 399. Chavez nonetheless continued to ...

8. BAILEY v. UNITED STATES

   disregard of the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393 (1978). In sum, of the three law ... v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393. In sum, none of the three law enforcement interests identified in ... enforcement may be made more efficient can never by itself justify disregard of the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey ...

9. FERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA

   unreasonable.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 390 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Groh v. ... “would always be simplified if warrants were unnecessary.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393(1978). ...

10. BAILEY v. UNITED STATES

    disregard of the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393 (1978). In sum, of the three law ... v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 393. In sum, none of the three law enforcement interests identified in ... enforcement may be made more efficient can never by itself justify disregard of the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey ...

Pages