Hayes v. Florida

PETITIONER: Hayes
RESPONDENT: Florida
LOCATION: United States Courthouse

DOCKET NO.: 83-6766
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: Florida Supreme Court

CITATION: 470 US 811 (1985)
ARGUED: Jan 09, 1985
DECIDED: Mar 20, 1985

ADVOCATES:
Michael E. Raiden - on behalf of the Petitioner
William I. Munsey, Jr. - on behalf of the Respondent

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Hayes v. Florida

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 09, 1985 in Hayes v. Florida

Warren E. Burger:

We will hear arguments first this morning in Hayes against Florida.

Mr. Raiden, you may proceed whenever you're ready.

Michael E. Raiden:

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

In 1980 in the city of Punta Gorda, Florida, there were a series of burglaries and rapes.

The primary clue as to the identity of the perpetrator available to the investigating officers were fingerprints.

In the particular case for which the petitioner was convicted, these fingerprints were found on the bedroom doorknob of the victim.

The petitioner was one of a number of suspects which the police desired to obtain the petitioner's fingerprints in order to compare them with the latents found in the victim's home.

They did not have probable cause.

At least that was argued in the trial court, and the appellate court, the Florida appellate court agreed there was no probable cause.

There was no prior judicial authorization for obtaining the prints, and the court of appeals found and agreed with the petitioner's argument that there was no consent to accompanying the officers to give the prints.

However, the police officers went to the petitioner's house, made it very clear that he had no choice but to go with them--

Thurgood Marshall:

Excuse me.

Michael E. Raiden:

--Yes, sir.

Thurgood Marshall:

It's agreed that there was no probable cause?

Michael E. Raiden:

It was argued by the defense that the state--

Thurgood Marshall:

It wasn't agreed to.

Michael E. Raiden:

--The court agreed with the petitioner.

Thurgood Marshall:

The court did.

Michael E. Raiden:

Yes, sir, Your Honor.

They obtained the prints at the police station after seizing Mr. Hayes at his home and taking him to the station and obtaining the prints.

Upon comparing them with the prints found in the victim's home, they uncovered a match, and he was then arrested and charged.

He moved in the trial court of Charlotte County, Florida to suppress the fingerprint evidence.

His primary case authority was Davis v. Mississippi, along with a couple Florida cases that had followed Davis.

And the court denied the motion to suppress without stating any particular reason.

The state had argued probable cause and/or consent.

It went to the appellate court, and again, the state argued probable cause and/or consent.

The district court of appeal in Florida found that there was no probable cause.

They further found that there was no consent.

However, despite the holding in Davis v. Mississippi, they affirmed the trial court's decision not to suppress the prints, and in so doing they found justification in Terry v. Ohio.

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Raiden, there's some suggestion in either the briefs or somewhere in this record that since they could have taken the fingerprints on his front porch or in his living room, it made no difference that they were taken later in the police station.