MICHIGAN V. TYLER PERTAINS TO INVESTIGATIONS OF FIRE SCENES AND MINCEY V. ARIZONA TO SEARCHES OF CRIME SCENES. BOTH CASES ARE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL, CLARIFYING THE COURT RULING AS IT RELATED TO EACH CASE. BOTH CASES LIMIT THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF EMERGENCY SEARCHES TO SITUATIONS THAT CLEARLY DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE. SUCH SITUATIONS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO, FIGHTING FIRE AND PREVENTING ITS RECURRENCE, PURSUING A SUSPECT, PREVENTING THE IMMINENT DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE, AND SEARCHING FOR VICTIMS OF CRIMES AS WELL AS SUSPECTS. SUCH SEARCHES MUST BE CONDUCTED AS SOON AS THE EMERGENCY IS DISCOVERED, AND THEIR SCOPE IS LIMITED BY EACH CIRCUMSTANCE. SEACHES THAT ARE PROLONGED OR GO BEYOND MEETING THE IMMEDIATE NEED OF THE EMERGENCY ARE LAWFUL ONLY UNDER A WARRANT. IF NO EMERGENCY EXISTS, NO WARRANTLESS SEARCH MAY BE CONDUCTED. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF CRIME SCENES MAY BE CONDUCTED IF CONSENT IS OBTAINED FROM THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE A RECOGNIZED PRIVACY INTEREST. EVIDENCE FROM AN ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS SEARCH CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BY A SUSPECT WITH NO RECOGNIZED PRIVACY INTEREST THAT HAS BEEN VIOLATED. ALTHOUGH THESE TWO DECISIONS WERE CONCERNED WITH INVESTIGATIONS OF ARSON AND MURDER, THEIR RULES ARE APPLICABLE TO INVESTIGATIONS OF OTHER CRIMES AS WELL. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (MRK)