Facts: The petitioner in this case, Mincey, was the subject of a narcotics raid. An undercover police officer along with several plainclothes policeman performed a narcotics raid on Mincey’s apartment. During the raid, the undercover officer was killed by gunshot. Two other people in the apartment, along with Mincey, were wounded during the raid. The narcotics agents that were present called for medical assistance for the victims of the shooting but did not continue with any further investigation. This was is because their department had instructed them not to investigate incidents in which they are involved in. Homicide detectives then arrived on the scene and proceeded to administer a warrantless search of the petitioner’s apartment. During this search they seized 200 to 300 objects, ripped up carpets and also opened dresser drawers. The same day of the raid, a homicide detective visited Mincey in the intensive-care unit at the hospital to interrogate him. When he arrived the petitioner was lying in bed barely conscious, hindered by tubes, needles, and a breathing apparatus. The detective read Mincey his Miranda rights and continued to interrogate him, disregarding the fact that Mincey had asked that the interrogation stop until he could get a lawyer.…show more content… The petitioner appealed. He stated that the evidence used against him in court had been unlawfully seized from his apartment without a warrant. Mincey also stated that the information that had been obtained from him at the hospital was invalid because he had not voluntary participated in the interrogation. Upon his appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court revoked the assault and murder convictions on state-law grounds. They did not revoke the narcotics convictions, holding that Mincey’s statements were voluntary and that the warrantless search of a homicide scene is authorized under the Fourth and Fourteenth
