After the investigation, the defendant was charged with and convicted of first-degree murder. % Did the presence of the police and crime scene investigator in the house violate Phillips' Fourth Amendment rights?

Question

At 11:48 p.m., a police dispatcher received a 911 call from a home, and a call from a neighbor, indicating that Sharon Phillips had been stabbed and her estranged husband was seen running away. Officers arrived at the residence at approximately 11:54 p.m. Phillips' body was lying in the doorway. Her throat had been cut. The officers conducted a protective sweep of the house in two minutes, and observed blood throughout. No evidence was removed. By that time emergency personnel arrived and pronounced Phillips dead at 12:03 a.m. The police officers secured the crime scene by placing yellow tape around the residence and covering the door so no one could "see in or get in." A crime scene technician arrived between 12:20 a.m. and 12:31 a.m. to photograph and videotape the scene and to collect evidence. The lead detective arrived at the scene at approximately 1:01 a.m. He, the officers and the technician, again conducted a walk through and the technician was instructed to collect blood samples. An officer arrived at the emergency room at approximately 12:40 a.m. and talked to the defendant, Edwin Phillips, about the incident. The officer at no time obtained Phillips' consent to search the house. A warrant was obtained the following day.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

No
Under Mincey v. Arizona (1978) there is no crime scene exception to the Fourth Amendment Warrant Clause, but there is an exigent circumstances exception. The initial entry of the officers was justified by a need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury. The 911 calls provided probable cause of exigent circumstances. Moreover, it is well settled that where the officers' search is conducted during the course of legitimate emergency activities, they may seize evidence of a crime that is in plain view. Under state cases, when a law enforcement officer enters private premises in response to a call for help and thereby comes upon what reasonably appears to be the scene of a crime, and secures the crime scene from persons other than law enforcement officers by appropriate means, all property within the crime scene in plain view which the officer has probable cause to associate with criminal activity is thereby lawfully seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Officers arriving at the crime scene thereafter and while it is still secured can examine and remove property in plain view without a search warrant. The entry of the lead detective did not constitute a new search, but a continuation of the initial search. The only evidence seized was evidence observed in plain view during the police officers' protective sweep of the house. At no time during the search did the officers open drawers or closed containers. The officers in Mincey, to the contrary, conducted an exhaustive search. They opened drawers, closets and cupboards, emptied clothing pockets and pulled up sections of the carpet. They did not, as in the present case, confine their search and seizure to items discovered in plain view during the emergency search.