Hayes v. Florida (1985) II. Facts: The police interviewed various people including Hayes about various crimes and he became the prime suspect that they were looking for. Several burglary-rapes occurred in Punta Gorda, Florida. The police had found hidden fingerprints on one of the victim’s door knobs. Police discovered a footprint near the same victim’s front porch. Hayes was then escorted to the police station for the fingerprints found. Hayes was at first refusing to accompany the officers to the station and one of them then said they would arrest him. Hayes then later agreed to accompany the officers to the station rather than to be arrested. The officers also seized a pair of tennis shoes in plain view from the porch. Hayes was taken to the police station and his fingerprints were examined, and matched to the suspect they were looking for. He was placed under formal arrest. He was claiming that all of the evidence gathered fell under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The officers did not have any probable cause to obtain the evidence that was taken in. Hayes took it to the Florida District court. he was later convicted and charged with burglary and sexual assault. The Florida District Court later affirmed the appeal. Finally the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hayes on March 20, 1985. All of this goes back showing us how the police obtained the evidence to take Hayes to the Police station to get his fingerprints. III. Legal Issue: The Court has to decide whether the evidence obtained by the officers is in violation of the 4th amendment of the United States. They would also argue on the person’s transport to the police station for fingerprinting. All of this was done without consent ,and without probable cause or judicial authorization. IV. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled a Unanimous decision. Majority opinion by Justice Byron R. White. Justices Burger, Rehnquist, Stevens, and O’Connor joined Justice White’s opinion. White Stated “The issue before us in this case is whether Hayes v. Florida (1985) the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, was properly applied by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, to allow police to transport a suspect to the station house for fingerprinting, without his consent and without probable cause or prior judicial authorization.” Justice Brennan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Marshall and Blackmun joined him. They were saying that the fingerprinting hayes was a form of identification of the person. That the police can ask for a person to identify themselves at any time. Justice Powell took no part in the decision of this case. The case was in favor to Hayes 5 in favor to 3. They needed to find out if the police’s evidence is truly valid in court. V. Rationale: Hayes was detained illegally without consent and probable cause. The evidence found is in violation of the fourth amendment and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The Landmark Decision that backs up this case was Terry v. Ohio from stop and frisk. The Supreme Court made a good decision on voting for Hayes. Police officers have to have probable cause before invading a person’s freedom and privacy.