Warden v. Hayden

387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Warden v. Hayden

United States Supreme Court
387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967)

Play video

Facts

Police received a call that an armed man had just stolen money from a taxi company. Taxi drivers gave a description of the armed man, including the clothing he was wearing, and informed the police that the man had just entered a private residence. Police officers arrived at the home in less than five minutes. A woman let the officers inside to search the house. An officer found Bennie Hayden (defendant) upstairs, pretending to sleep. Around the same time, another officer found two firearms in a toilet tank in the house, and officers found ammunition matching the firearms in Hayden’s bedroom. Meanwhile, downstairs, other officers continued to search for any other men in the house. One officer opened a washing machine, found clothing that matched the description of the robber’s clothing, and seized the clothing. Once the officers confirmed there were no other men in the house, they arrested Hayden. The firearms, ammunition, and clothing were admitted as evidence during Hayden’s trial. Hayden was convicted, and his state-court appeals were unsuccessful. Hayen filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, arguing that the warrantless search of his home and the warrantless seizure of the clothing violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the petition. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that the search was lawful but ruled that the clothing evidence was inadmissible under the mere-evidence rule. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)

Concurrence (Fortas, J.)

Dissent (Douglas, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 733,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership