Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1967

Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden

387 U.S. 294 | 87 S. Ct. 1642 | 18 L. Ed. 2d 782 | 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2753

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case approved an exigent hot-pursuit search for an armed suspect and abolished the Fourth Amendment's "mere evidence" rule, allowing seizure of evidentiary items when probable cause and other Fourth Amendment limits are satisfied.

Background

Minutes after an armed robbery at a Baltimore cab company, two cab drivers pursued the fleeing robber to a house at 2111 Cocoa Lane. Police received a description of the suspect as a Black man about 5'8" wearing a light cap and dark jacket, and learned that he had entered the house less than five minutes earlier. Officers promptly arrived, entered the home, and conducted a search for the armed suspect and weapons.

Police found Hayden upstairs pretending to sleep and arrested him. During the search, officers found a shotgun and pistol in a bathroom flush tank; ammunition and a cap under Hayden's mattress and in a bureau drawer; and a jacket and trousers matching the robber's description in a washing machine. The clothing, weapons, and ammunition were admitted at Hayden's state bench trial, which resulted in a conviction for armed robbery.

After unsuccessful state post-conviction proceedings and a federal district court's denial of habeas relief, the Fourth Circuit reversed. It held that the search itself was valid, but concluded that the clothing was inadmissible because it was "mere evidence" rather than contraband, fruits of crime, or an instrumentality of crime. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Fourth Circuit.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the police could enter and search Hayden's home without a warrant immediately after learning that an armed robbery suspect had entered it.

Holding

Yes. The warrantless entry and search were reasonable because exigent circumstances required immediate action.

Reasoning

The officers had reliable, contemporaneous information that an armed robbery had just occurred and that the suspect had entered the Cocoa Lane house only minutes before their arrival. Under those circumstances, delaying to obtain a warrant could have endangered the officers and others or allowed the suspect to escape.

The permissible scope of the search extended to areas reasonably necessary to locate the suspect and secure weapons. A thorough search was justified because the police needed to determine whether Hayden was the only person in the house and to control weapons that could be used to resist arrest or facilitate escape.

The Court rejected the claim that the clothing was outside the scope of the emergency search. Although the officer testified that he was looking for the suspect or the stolen money when he opened the washing machine, the Court reasonably inferred that he was also looking for weapons, since he knew the robber was armed and did not know whether all weapons had yet been found.

Issue #2

Whether the Fourth Amendment forbids the seizure and use of clothing solely because it is "mere evidence" rather than contraband, fruits, or an instrumentality of crime.

Holding

No. The Fourth Amendment does not recognize a general distinction barring the seizure of "mere evidence" when the search and seizure otherwise satisfy constitutional requirements.

Reasoning

The text of the Fourth Amendment protects people, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures without distinguishing between evidentiary items and fruits, instrumentalities, or contraband. A search for evidence invades privacy no more than a search for any of the traditionally seizable categories.

The Amendment's central safeguards are reasonableness, probable cause, particularity, and, ordinarily, a neutral magistrate's authorization. Those protections can regulate a search for evidence just as effectively as they regulate a search for stolen goods, contraband, or criminal tools.

The older "mere evidence" rule rested on property-based assumptions: that the government needed a superior possessory interest in the item seized and that an accused could not be compelled to furnish evidence against himself. The Court concluded that those assumptions no longer govern Fourth Amendment doctrine, which protects privacy rather than common-law property interests.

The clothing was not testimonial or communicative in the Fifth Amendment sense. Its evidentiary value came from its physical resemblance to the clothing worn by the robber, not from any compelled statement or disclosure by Hayden.

For a search targeting evidentiary materials, police must still have probable cause to believe there is a nexus between the item sought and criminal conduct—that the item will aid a particular apprehension or conviction. That nexus existed here because the jacket and trousers matched the description of the fleeing robber's clothing and could help identify him.

Concurrences

Justice Black

Reasoning

Justice Black concurred only in the result and supplied no separate reasoning.

Justice Fortas

Reasoning

Justice Fortas agreed that the clothing should be admissible, and the Chief Justice joined his opinion. But he regarded the majority's wholesale rejection of the "mere evidence" rule as unnecessary to decide this case and potentially dangerous to Fourth Amendment protections.

In his view, warrantless searches during hot pursuit must remain narrowly tied to the emergency that excuses the warrant requirement. Weapons may be seized to protect officers, and fruits may be seized because they are objects of the pursuit and may be restored to their owner; those limits help prevent an emergency search from becoming a general exploratory search.

Fortas would admit the clothing on a narrower ground: it helped establish that the person found in the house was the robber whom police had lawfully pursued. Because the clothes were identifying evidence directly connected to the hot-pursuit justification, their seizure fit within the purpose of that limited exception.

He warned that eliminating the evidentiary limitation altogether could authorize the kind of general searches that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. In his view, the Court should recognize a specific, sensible exception rather than broadly unsettle the historic protection against police rummaging through private effects for proof of guilt.

Dissents

Justice Douglas

Reasoning

Justice Douglas maintained that the Fourth Amendment creates not only rules governing warrants but also a protected zone of privacy into which government may not intrude merely to gather evidence. In his view, this protection covers personal papers and effects even when officers otherwise have a warrant or are engaged in hot pursuit.

He traced that principle to the historical reaction against general warrants and searches for incriminating papers, especially Entick v. Carrington, Boyd v. United States, and Gouled v. United States. Those authorities, he argued, distinguished legitimate seizure of stolen goods, contraband, and instrumentalities from the government's use of a search to obtain a person's private effects as evidence against that person.

Douglas rejected the majority's view that the shift from property concepts to privacy concepts undermined the mere-evidence rule. To him, privacy was precisely the reason to preserve the rule: it prevents police from rummaging through an individual's possessions simply because those possessions might prove guilt.

He also viewed compelled acquisition of a person's private effects for use against him as closely connected to the privilege against self-incrimination. Allowing the government to seize and use such effects, he warned, would erode the individual's control over when and how private matters are disclosed and would make the Fourth and Fifth Amendments inadequate safeguards against a police state.