Cupp v. Murphy

The search of the defendant’s fingernails went beyond observing the physical characteristics constantly exposed to the public. It constituted the type of severe, though brief, intrusion upon personal security that is subject to the Fourth Amendment.

Even though the defendant was not arrested, he was sufficiently apprised of his suspected role in the crime to motivate him to attempt to destroy what evidence he could. His actions of putting his hands behind his back and then into his pockets were a sufficient indication of the likelihood of the destruction of evidence. While a full Chimel search incident to arrest would not be justified (the defendant had not been placed under arrest) the Court held that a limited intrusion to preserve evidence is reasonable. These actions by the defendant, along with the existence of probable cause, justified the limited intrusion undertaken by the government to preserve the evidence under the defendant’s fingernails.

NOTE: This case is often cited as a “search incident to arrest” case, and justifiably so. However, it is placed in this section to serve as an example of the urgency brought about by the possibility of the destruction of evidence. As the Court stated “On the facts of this case, considering the existence of probable cause, the very limited intrusion undertaken incident to the station house detention, and the readydestructibility of the evidence, we cannot say that this search violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (underline added).”