In which case did the supreme court hold that officers who were in hot pursuit of an armed robbery suspect acted reasonably when they entered a house and began to search for a man because the ""fourth amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others""?

The Warden v. Hayden case

Explanation:

This case was brought before the United States Supreme Court, and was remembered because it allowed "mere evidence" (anything that is not directly related to the crime) to be brought before the court as evidence.

Mr. Hayden was witnessed by two men to have robbed a jewelry store, and shortly after he was seen entering a house. The police were then called to the scene where they entered the house (through consent of Mrs. Hayden) and proceeded to search the house for evidence. They found some of his clothes (which proved that the Mr. Hayden did in fact live there) as well as guns with ammunition.

The clothes classified as "mere evidence" because it was not used directly to commit the crime, and the police entered the house without a search warrant. The fourth amendment however, states that in the pursuit of a criminal, police may enter property without a warrant if it is believed that not doing so would endanger their own lives, or lives of others.

what are the events?

ne pare rău, dar când mi-am căutat întrebarea, doar avioanele au apărut .. deci, ar putea fi răspunsul, sau ar putea fi baloane cu aer cald, deoarece acestea pot conta și ca ambarcațiunile de aer, dar nu sunt complet sigur de asta. a fost doar o presupunere, sper că am ajutat, îmi pare rău dacă nu am făcut-o. de asemenea, folosesc traducerea google, pentru a traduce ceea ce spun în engleză, așa că îmi pare rău dacă gramatica sau chiar limba nu este corectă