Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden Warden

Petitioner

Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

Respondent

Bennie Joe Hayden

Petitioner's Claim

A police officer may seize mere evidence--evidence that is not an instrumentality of a crime, the fruits of a crime, or contraband--found in the course of a valid warrantless search conducted in a criminal suspect's home immediately after a hot pursuit of the suspect.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Franklin Goldstein, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Albert R. Turnbull

Justices for the Court

Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Abe Fortas, John Marshall Harlan II, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William O. Douglas

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

29 May 1967

Decision

A police officer may seize, and the prosecution may introduce at trial, mere evidence that is found during a valid, warrantless search of a home.

Related Cases

• Entick v. Carrington, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K.B. 1765).
• Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).
• Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (1921).
• Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960).
• Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961).
• Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
• Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

Further Readings

• Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
• Kerper, Hazel B., Introduction to the Criminal Justice System, 2nd ed. Minneapolis: West Publishing Co., 1979.
• New York Times, May 30, 1967.
• Witt, Elder, ed. Search and Seizure. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1990.