Warden v. Hayden
Citation: 387 U.S. 294 (1967)
Facts
Police received a radio call that an armed robbery had just occurred and the suspect had run into a particular house. Officers followed, knocked, were admitted, and searched the house without a warrant, finding a shotgun, pistol, and clothing matching the suspect’s description.
Issue
May police enter and search a home without a warrant when in hot pursuit of an armed suspect who has just committed a crime?
Holding
Yes. The exigency of hot pursuit of a fleeing armed felon justifies a warrantless entry into a home. The Fourth Amendment does not require officers to delay an investigation if doing so would gravely endanger their lives or others’ lives.
Rule
Hot pursuit exigent circumstance: Officers in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing suspect who has committed a serious offense (especially a violent one) may enter a private home without a warrant to apprehend the suspect. The scope of the search may extend to the entire premises where the suspect might be hiding and to evidence that might be concealed.
Also held: “mere evidence” (evidence having evidentiary value but not the fruits or instrumentalities of crime) may be seized under a warrant — overruling the “mere evidence rule.”
Significance
- Foundational hot pursuit case
- The government must show genuine exigency — not merely a convenience — and the crime must be serious (Welsh v. Wisconsin: hot pursuit of misdemeanor drunk driver insufficient to justify warrantless home entry)
- Scope of hot pursuit search extends to where the suspect could hide and any weapons or contraband
- The “mere evidence” holding resolved a long-standing limitation on what police could seize