Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialseizure
appealtrialseizure

Related Cases

Dike v. Dike, 75 Wash.2d 1, 448 P.2d 490
View Case »
International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642, 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2641, 62 USLW 4705, 128 Lab.Cas. P 11,120
View Case »
State v. Macumber, 112 Ariz. 569, 544 P.2d 1084
View Case »
In re Marriage of Crivello, Not Reported in P.3d, 103 Wash.App. 1019, 2000 WL 1668014
View Case »
Deal v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2016 WL 9405828
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782

Facts

On March 17, 1962, an armed robber entered the Diamond Cab Company in Baltimore, Maryland, and stole $363. Witnesses reported the suspect's description to the police, who arrived at a nearby house shortly after the robbery. Mrs. Hayden consented to a search of the house, where police found the suspect, Hayden, and various items including clothing matching the robber's description in a washing machine. These items were later used as evidence in Hayden's trial for armed robbery.

On March 17, 1962, an armed robber entered the Diamond Cab Company in Baltimore, Maryland, and stole $363.

Issue

Whether the seizure of clothing, classified as 'mere evidence,' during a warrantless search of a home violated the Fourth Amendment.

Whether the seizure of clothing, classified as 'mere evidence,' during a warrantless search of a home violated the Fourth Amendment.

Rule

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but does not distinguish between 'mere evidence' and items that are instrumentalities or fruits of a crime.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but does not distinguish between 'mere evidence' and items that are instrumentalities or fruits of a crime.

Analysis

The Court determined that the search was lawful due to the exigent circumstances surrounding the armed robbery. The police acted reasonably in searching for the suspect and any weapons he might have used. The clothing found in the washing machine was deemed admissible because it was relevant to the identification of the suspect and the police had probable cause to believe it would aid in the investigation.

The Court determined that the search was lawful due to the exigent circumstances surrounding the armed robbery.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the clothing seized was admissible as evidence in Hayden's trial.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the clothing seized was admissible as evidence in Hayden's trial.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of the clothing was lawful and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The United States prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of the clothing was lawful and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

You must be