Warden v. Hayden (1966)
- Docket
- 480
- Decided
- 1966-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Does the Fourth Amendment create a distinction between merely evidentiary materials, which may not be seized during the course of a search, and the instrumentalities or fruits of the crime, which may be seized? Conclusion: Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 6-3 majority. The Supreme Court held that the language and purpose of the Fourth Amendment does not support such a distinction. Because the Fourth Amendment was meant to protect the privacy of citizens from being violated by the government, the type of property that is the subject of the search is irrelevant to the protection provided. Justice Hugo L. Black concurred in the judgment. Justice Abe Fortas wrote a partial concurrence in which he argued that the Fourth Amendment limits the scope of searches to those items which can be directly tied to the commission of a crime. He also argued that the protection against general searches is a fundamental aspect of the Fourth Amendment, and the majority’s opinion damages that protection. Chief Justice Earl Warren joined in the partial concurrence. In his dissenting opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the Fourth Amendment provides protection of both privacy and property. He argued that not all evidence discovered in a lawful search is admissible, particularly if it serves a testimonial purpose that would violate the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant.