Concurrence Black Dissent Douglas Citations 387 U.S. 294 () | Date decided 1967 Subsequent history Conviction upheld | |
Full case name Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden Majority Brennan, joined by Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White Concurrence Fortas, joined by Warren Prior history Defendant convicted; conviction reversed on appeal, (87 S. Ct. 1642) Similar Knowles v Iowa, California v Acevedo, Chimel v California, Payton v New York, Florida v Bostick | ||
Warden v hayden court case reeanactment
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that 'mere evidence' may be seized and held as evidence in a trial. This finding reversed previous Supreme Court decisions such as Boyd v. United States which had held that search warrants may not be used as a means of gaining access to a man's house or office and papers solely for the purpose of making search to secure evidence to be used against him in a criminal or penal proceeding...
Contents
Background of the case
In the morning of March 17, 1962, an armed man robbed the Diamond Cab Company in Baltimore, Maryland. Two cab drivers followed the man to a house and relayed the information to the police, who arrived soon after. After the police knocked on the door and announced that they were searching for a robber seen entering the house, Mrs Hayden consented to the search. A search of the premises revealed a gun and clothing, found in a washing machine, that matched the description of the armed man that had been reported by the cab company. Weapons were found in a bathroom that matched the description of those used by the robber. Ammunition for the shotgun was found in Mr Hayden's chest of drawers and ammunition for the handgun under his mattress.
Hayden was convicted at a bench trial. During appeals, courts held that the search of the house was valid; the search for weapons that were used in the crime, or could be used against the police was also valid. However, the appellate court held that the clothing was of 'mere evidential' nature, not in plain sight, and this was not properly seized. The police had been in hot pursuit of the robber, and thus were exempt from needing a warrant to search the house. However, under the rules at that time, seizing evidence such as the clothing that fit the description of the fleeing robber would not have been allowed. Suppressing the improperly seized evidence would lead to a new trial under the principle of the fruit of the poisonous tree.