Demonstrate a critical thought process about below: If police officers have probable cause to search, and they reasonably believe the evidence is about to be destroyed right now, they can search without a warrant. For example, in Cupp v. Murphy (1973), SCOTUS held that police officers who had probable cause to believe Daniel Murphy had strangled his wife didn't need a warrant to take scrapings of what looked like blood under his fingernails. Why? Because Murphy knew the officers suspected he was the strangler, so he had a motive to destroy the short-lived bloodstain evidence. In Schmerber v. California (1966; Chapter 8), SCOTUS held that rapidly declining blood alcohol levels justified giving a blood alcohol test to Schmerber without a warrant. And in Ker v. California (1963), the SCOTUS held that a warrantless entry into a home was justified by the reasonable fear that Ker was about to destroy or hide marijuana.