THE CASE OF MINCEY VERSUS ARIZONA, DECIDED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN JUNE 1978, DEALT WITH THE LEGALITY OF A 4-DAY SEARCH OF AN APARTMENT WHERE AN UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICER WAS FATALLY WOUNDED IN A SHOOTOUT WITH A SUSPECTED DRUG DEALER. MINCEY WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR MURDER, ASSAULT, AND NARCOTICS OFFENSES. MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM AT TRIAL WAS THE RESULT OF SEARCHING HIS APARTMENT. AT TRIAL AND ON APPEAL, MINCEY CONTENDED THAT THE EVIDENCE GATHERED FROM HIS APARTMENT, WITHOUT A WARRANT AND WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, WAS ILLEGALLY SEIZED. THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS BUT AFFIRMED THE NARCOTICS CONVICTION, HOLDING THAT THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE SCENE OF A RECENT HOMICIDE IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT. IN A UNANIMOUS OPINION, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT WITH REGARD TO THE SEARCH OF THE APARTMENT, HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO CATEGORICAL MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT STATED THAT THE SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS BEING NECESSARY TO THE PROTECTION OF LIFE OR LIMB BECAUSE ALL PERSONS IN THE APARTMENT HAD BEEN LOCATED AND THE SITUATION WAS CLEARLY UNDER CONTROL BEFORE HOMICIDE OFFICERS ARRIVED AND BEGAN THE SEARCH. THE APPROACH TAKEN BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, CAREFULLY TYPING THE TIME OF THE SEARCH TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE EMERGENCY AND THE SCOPE OF THE SEARCH TO REASONS JUSTIFYING THE ORIGINAL ENTRY, IS CONSISTENT WITH SEVERAL OTHER FEDERAL CASES, INCLUDING THE 'PLAIN VIEW' DOCTRINE AND CONSENT SEARCHES. THE 'PLAIN VIEW' DOCTRINE HAS OFTEN BEEN RELIED UPON BY FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS TO UPHOLD THE SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE OBSERVED AT THE SCENE OF A CRIME BY AN OFFICER IN THE PURSUIT OF LEGITIMATE DUTIES. IN CONSENT SEARCHES, THERE ARE TWO VITAL ELEMENTS: (1) THE CONSENTING PARTY MUST HAVE THE CAPACITY OR AUTHORITY TO WAIVE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AND (2) THE CONSENT MUST BE FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY GIVEN. AN IMPORTANT ISSUE NOT RESOLVED IN THE MINCEY CASE IS WHO MAY PROPERLY OBJECT TO EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN SEIZED IN AN ILLEGAL MANNER. THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT ONLY A PERSON WHOSE REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY HAS BEEN INVADED BY A SEARCH MAY OBJECT TO EVIDENCE SEIZED AS A RESULT OF THAT SEARCH. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)