In the Mincey v. Arizona case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search of an apartment was not justified by the fact that it was a homicide scene. The court held that while some evidence may be collected without a warrant under exigent circumstances or plain view doctrine, this does not allow for an exhaustive and intrusive search without obtaining proper legal permission first. In this particular case, police officers conducted a four-day intensive investigation in Rufus Mincey's apartment after he shot an undercover officer during a drug raid. They did so without securing any kind of search warrant which led to his conviction based on the evidence gathered from these searches. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, it overturned his conviction stating that such extensive searches violated Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the dissenting opinion for Mincey v. Arizona, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to exclude evidence obtained without a warrant during an emergency situation was too broad and could potentially hinder law enforcement efforts in future cases. He contended that there should be exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in situations where police officers are responding to emergencies or violent crimes. In this case, he believed that it was reasonable for officers to search Mincey's apartment given they were investigating a shooting incident involving one of their own colleagues who had been fatally wounded at the scene. The exigent circumstances justified immediate action by law enforcement officials which would not allow time for obtaining a search warrant from court authorities.