Warden v. Hayden
387 U.S. 294 (1967)
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the seizure of items that are purely evidentiary in nature. The previous distinction between 'mere evidence' and seizable items like fruits, instrumentalities, and contraband is rejected.
Facts:
- On March 17, 1962, a man committed an armed robbery of the Diamond Cab Company in Baltimore, stealing approximately $363.
- Two cab drivers followed the robber to a house at 2111 Cocoa Lane and radioed his location and description to the company dispatcher, who relayed it to police.
- Within minutes, police arrived at the house, where Mrs. Hayden, the spouse of respondent Hayden, answered the door and consented to a search.
- During the search, police found Bennie Joe Hayden feigning sleep in an upstairs bedroom and arrested him.
- While searching the house for the suspect and weapons, officers found a shotgun and pistol in a toilet's flush tank.
- An officer also found a jacket and trousers matching the robber's description inside a washing machine in the cellar, and a cap and ammunition were found in Hayden's bedroom.
Procedural Posture:
- Bennie Joe Hayden was convicted of armed robbery in a Maryland state trial court.
- After unsuccessful post-conviction proceedings in state courts, Hayden filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, which was denied.
- Hayden, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Fourth Circuit, with the Warden as appellee, reversed the district court's decision, holding that the clothing was inadmissible as 'mere evidence.'
- The Warden petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit the warrantless seizure of items of solely evidentiary value, such as clothing, discovered during a lawful search?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the seizure of items that are solely of evidentiary value. The Court rejects the long-standing distinction between 'mere evidence' and seizable items like instrumentalities, fruits of a crime, or contraband. This distinction is based on the discredited premise that property interests, rather than privacy, control the right to search and seize. The principal object of the Fourth Amendment is to protect privacy, and the invasion of privacy is no greater when police seize evidentiary items than when they seize contraband or instrumentalities. As long as there is a nexus—probable cause to believe the evidence will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction—the seizure is permissible. In this case, the police reasonably believed the clothing would aid in identifying the culprit.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Fortas
I concur in the result but not the reasoning. While the seizure of the clothing was permissible, the Court's broad repudiation of the 'mere evidence' rule is unnecessary and dangerous. Instead of eliminating the rule entirely, the Court should have created a narrow exception for items seized during a 'hot pursuit' that are directly relevant to identifying the suspect. The clothing here is pertinent to identifying the person hotly pursued as being the person connected with the crime. The majority's sweeping decision drives an 'enormous and dangerous hole in the Fourth Amendment' by sanctioning general searches.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The Fourth Amendment should prohibit the seizure of 'mere evidence.' This decision violates the historical understanding that the Fourth Amendment creates a zone of privacy for personal effects that police cannot rummage through simply to find evidence. Citing foundational cases like Boyd and Gouled, the dissent argues that unless items are contraband or instruments of the crime, they are sacrosanct from government seizure. Allowing the seizure of purely evidentiary items like clothing transforms the Fourth Amendment into an instrument for a police state, destroying the individual's right to keep his personal affairs private.
Analysis:
Warden v. Hayden is a landmark decision that fundamentally altered Fourth Amendment jurisprudence by explicitly abolishing the 'mere evidence' rule established in Gouled v. United States. This ruling shifted the constitutional focus from the protection of property rights to the protection of privacy, a trend that had been developing for years. By doing so, the Court significantly expanded the lawful scope of government searches, allowing law enforcement to seize any item as long as they can establish a probable cause nexus between the item and a crime. This decision has had a lasting impact, broadening the range of evidence admissible in criminal prosecutions and simplifying the rules for seizures.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Warden v. Hayden (1967)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"