In Cupp v. Murphy it was believed that Murphy, the respondent, had killed his spouse. Without a
warrant, the respondent's fingernails were scraped clean of a small amount of blood during police
questioning. When he was on trial, this blood was used against him. Because the evidence was
collected against the respondent's Fourth Amendment rights, he claimed that it ought to have
been suppressed. The question at hand is whether the respondent's Fourth Amendment
protections against arbitrary searches and seizures were violated by the warrantless acquisition of
physical evidence, in this case, blood scraped from his fingernails.
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by
the warrantless seizure of the blood evidence. Since there was an urgent need for quick action
and there was a risk that the evidence would be lost if it was not gathered quickly, the court
determined that the evidence was obtained under extreme conditions. Therefore, the Fourth
Amendment's justification for a reasonable search and seizure of evidence supported the
acquisition of the blood evidence. The case established the rule that, in cases where there is an
urgent need for immediate action and there is a reasonable suspicion that the evidence will be
lost or destroyed if it is not gathered quickly, exigent circumstances may justify a warrantless
search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Cupp v. Murphy provided guidance on when law enforcement may conduct warrantless searches
or seizures based on the need for immediate action and evidence preservation, clarifying how the
Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies in situations involving exigent circumstances.
