NCJ Number
80198
Date Published
Unknown
Length
0 pages
Annotation
The hot pursuit exception to the warranted search mandated by the fourth amendment is discussed in this lecture by Charles E. Moylan, Associate Judge of the Maryland Special Court of Appeals.
Abstract
This exception concerns exigent (emergency) circumstances. Its limits were defined in the 1967 case of Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary v. B.J. Hayden. The case involved legitimate apprehension of a fleeing felon who was initially convicted. This verdict was reversed upon appeal because of implications of the mere evidence rule. Evidence in the form of a cap and jacket had been obtained through an overthorough search of the premises to which the fleeing felon had led his pursuers. It was ruled inadmissible as 'mere evidence' -- not available even if it had been seized with a warrant. Mere evidence contrasts with the other three categories of evidence (i.e., contraband, fruits of a crime, and instrumentalities of a crime) for these are seizable without warrant. The mere evidence concept has its origins in the supreme value of private property, giving the defendant rather than the State the superior property right. This constitutionally protected threshold is valued above evidence except where life itself is at stake. These conditions constitute the hot pursuit requirements which validates crossing the threshold.