Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
387 U.S. 294 (1967)
Author: DK

Facts: The state seized respondent’s clothing as evidence to convict him for armed robbery.

Issue:  Whether, even though the search was lawful, the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the seizure and introduction of the items of clothing violated the Fourth Amendment?

Holding: No

Old Rule: Under the old rule, the government was allowed to seize instrumentalities, fruits or contraband but not items that were mere evidence to be used against the accused.

Rationale:  According to the Court, the privacy is disturbed no more by a search directed to a purely evidentiary object than it is by a search directed to an instrumentality, fruit, or contraband.  The 4^th Amendment was designed to protect privacy rights and not property rights.  Therefore, the old rule is based on a fiction because sometimes things that might are evidentiary in one case may be an instrumentality in another.  The government interest is not in property but in solving crime.  Therefore, the old rule is unworkable and as long as the search is lawful, the items can be seized regardless of the fact that they are mere evidence or instrumentality, fruits, or contraband.