LOCATION: Spokane Filling Station
DOCKET NO.: 147
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
CITATION: 373 US 503 (1963)
ARGUED: Feb 26, 1963 / Feb 27, 1963
DECIDED: May 27, 1963
George A. Kain - For the Respondent
Lawrence Speiser - For the Petitioner
Facts of the case
On the evening of December 19, 1957, Spokane police officers arrested Raymond L. Haynes near a gas station that had just been robbed. Haynes admitted to the robbery as officers drove him to the police station, and he signed a written confession after he was told that he could not call his wife until he signed it. At trial, Haynes argued that the confession was inadmissible because it was involuntary and coerced. The judge admitted the confession into evidence, and the jury found Haynes guilty. Haynes appealed, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
Did the lower court’s admission of the signed confession violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Media for Haynes v. WashingtonAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 27, 1963 in Haynes v. Washington
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 26, 1963 in Haynes v. Washington
Number 147, Raymond L. Haynes, Petitioner, versus Washington.
Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.
This case involves the issue as to whether the petitioner has been deprived of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment by the introduction, into his trial on a charge of robbery, of a confession which was obtained from him under circumstances, including being booked for investigation, being held incommunicado, being refused permission to call his wife or an attorney under a regular practice and procedure of the Spokane Police Department in violation of a state law in which a confession was signed by him some 16 hours after his arrest and in which he was not informed of his constitutional rights until he was brought before a magistrate some 18 and a half hours after arrest.
There is a second issue in the case which has been raised in the filing of a supplemental brief as to whether the confessions obtained from him after an arrest without probable cause should be excluded on the basis of the decisions of Mapp versus Ohio, holding the exclusionary rule applicable to the states and Wong Sun versus United States, holding that verbal evidence which has been obtained after an arrest without probable cause fall within the scope of the exclusionary principle.
The facts in the case are these.
On December 19, 1957, a robbery occurred in the City of Spokane, two men were involved.
The police were called.
Within 10 minutes, one of the men was captured.
Fifteen minutes later, a prowl car, some five blocks from the scene of the robbery which had received what was described as an incomplete description of the remaining robber, spotted the petitioner in this case.
As the prowl car approached, he started up the yard of a house.
The police shown a spotlight on him, he is called back to the car, they question him for a few moments.
Apparently satisfied with his explanation and the discussion, he was permitted to leave.
He walked back up the yard of the house to the door.
He fumbled with a key at the storm door.
In the meanwhile, the police sat in the prowl car, did not move, and watched him.
He then walked back toward the police car and it's a little unclear from the record exactly what transpired first.
However, the office -- the arresting officer testified that he walked back to the car, he's placed under arrest, and apparently, at the same time or near the same time he said, “You got me, let's go.”
After being placed in the police car, the officer testified, this Officer Usher, that he admitted the robbery that he was crying, that he was taken to the scene of the robbery, that he identified it and then in response to a call from headquarters he was taken back to headquarters.
At headquarters, he was booked for investigation.
He was searched.
He had not been frisked or handcuffed during the ride back to the police station.
On him was found --
Did the evidence show whose house it was?
No, there's no evidence in the record on that--
That was his house or a relative's house or a stranger's house?
There is no evidence in the record on that question.
It maybe inferred I believe though that it is not the petitioner's house because in the record, he gives his address and his address apparently is not the same as this house.
There was no attention called to that point on the record.
That -- he arrived back at the police station approximately 10 p.m., which was about a half hour after being arrested, he was interrogated in an interrogation room by Lieutenant Wakeley of the Spokane Police Department.