In Warden v. Hayden, police may enter private property without a warrant and seize 'mere evidence'.

• A. May enter private property without a warrant and seize mere evidence.
• B. May enter only with a warrant and seize pretrial notebooks.
• C. May not enter a private home without consent.
• D. May enter to seize only contraband.

Answer: (A)

Exigent circumstances allow police to act without a warrant when immediate action is needed to prevent harm or the destruction of evidence. In Warden v. Hayden, the Court held that when officers are in hot pursuit of a felon who flees into a private residence, they may enter without a warrant and seize items that would be evidence of the crime, if waiting for a warrant would risk the suspect escaping or the evidence being destroyed. This includes “mere evidence”—not just contraband or instruments of the crime—so long as the entry is justified by the urgency of the situation. The decision recognizes that the public danger or risk of loss of evidence can outweigh the occupant’s privacy interest in that moment. Without such exigent circumstances, a warrant would normally be required.