翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Warden High School
・ Warden Hills
・ Warden Lake
・ Warden Law
・ Warden of the Dead
・ Warden of the Mint
・ Warden of the Swans
・ Warden Park School
・ Warden Pass
・ Warden Peak
・ Warden pear
・ Warden Point Battery
・ Warden Railway Bridge
・ Warden Rock
・ Warden Stadium
Warden v. Hayden
・ Warden's Five Rings
・ Warden's House
・ Warden's House (Alcatraz Island)
・ Warden's House (McAlester, Oklahoma)
・ Warden's House Museum
・ Warden, Free State
・ Warden, Kent
・ Warden, Northumberland
・ Warden, Quebec
・ Warden, Washington
・ Warden, West Virginia
・ Wardenburg
・ Wardenclyffe
・ Wardenclyffe Tower


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Warden v. Hayden : ウィキペディア英語版
Warden v. Hayden

''Warden v. Hayden'', , was a United States Supreme Court case that held that 'mere evidence' may be seized and held as evidence in a trial. This finding reversed previous Supreme Court decisions such as Boyd v. United States which had held that search warrants ''may not be used as a means of gaining access to a man's house or office and papers solely for the purpose of making search to secure evidence to be used against him in a criminal or penal proceeding...''〔page 302 of Warden v. Hayden〕
==Background of the case==
In the morning of March 17, 1962, an armed man robbed the Diamond Cab Company in Baltimore, Maryland. Two cab drivers followed the man to a house and relayed the information to the police, who arrived soon after. After the police knocked on the door and announced that they were searching for a robber seen entering the house, Mrs Hayden consented to the search. A search of the premises revealed a gun and clothing, found in a washing machine, that matched the description of the armed man that had been reported by the cab company. Weapons were found in a bathroom that matched the description of those used by the robber. Ammunition for the shotgun was found in Mr Hayden's chest of drawers and ammunition for the handgun under his mattress.
Hayden was convicted at a bench trial. During appeals, courts held that the search of the house was valid; the search for weapons that were used in the crime, or could be used against the police was also valid. However, the appellate court held that the clothing was of 'mere evidential' nature, not in plain sight, and this was not properly seized. The police had been in hot pursuit of the robber, and thus were exempt from needing a warrant to search the house. However, under the rules at that time, seizing evidence such as the clothing that fit the description of the fleeing robber would not have been allowed. Suppressing the improperly seized evidence would lead to a new trial under the principle of the fruit of the poisonous tree.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Warden v. Hayden」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.