Gavin Howe
Arizona v. Hicks (1987) addressed the application of the plain view doctrine in relation to the Fourth Amendment's requirements for searches and seizures. The case arose from a situation where police entered a suspect's apartment without a warrant due to exigent circumstances. The police officer moved certain stereo equipment, which looked out of place, and learned that it had been taken during an armed robbery. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. The Court's decision established a precedent that the plain view doctrine cannot be invoked when the police have less than probable cause to believe that an item is evidence of a crime or contraband.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date | April 18, 1984 |
| Case Number | 480 U.S. 321 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Holding | The Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view |
| Issue | Whether the "plain view" doctrine can be invoked when the police have less than probable cause to believe that the item in question is evidence of a crime or contraband |
| Prior History | The state trial court granted Hicks' motion to suppress the stereo equipment, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the case, but the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to do so. |
| Subsequent History | The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals |
| Judges | Justice Powell, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, Justice White |
| Keywords | Fourth Amendment, probable cause, searches and seizures, plain view, reasonable suspicion |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The plain view doctrine
Arizona v. Hicks (1987) addressed the application of the "plain view" doctrine in relation to the Fourth Amendment's requirements for searches and seizures. The case arose from a situation where police entered a suspect's apartment without a warrant due to exigent circumstances. While investigating a shooting in the apartment, a police officer moved certain stereo equipment, which looked out of place, and learned that it had been taken during an armed robbery.
The "plain view" doctrine allows police officers to seize evidence without a warrant under certain circumstances. The doctrine applies when the initial intrusion that brings the police within plain view of the evidence is supported by one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances. In other words, if the police are lawfully present and inadvertently come across evidence in plain view, they can seize it without a warrant.
In Arizona v. Hicks, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. The Court rejected the argument that merely looking at an object in plain view is lawful, but moving or disturbing it to investigate a reasonable suspicion is not. The Court concluded that a search had occurred when the officer moved the stereo equipment to record the serial numbers, as it constituted a separate and additional invasion of privacy unrelated to the initial lawful objective of entering the apartment.
The Court's decision in Arizona v. Hicks established that probable cause is required to invoke the "plain view" doctrine. The mere recording of serial numbers or observation of items in plain view may not constitute a seizure, but moving or disturbing an object, even slightly, to conduct a closer inspection or examination is considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. This decision set a precedent for balancing governmental and private interests, ensuring that reasonable suspicion, supported by facts or circumstances, justifies the application of the "plain view" doctrine.
Appellate Case Law: Binding or Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Fourth Amendment rights
Arizona v. Hicks (1987) established case law regarding Fourth Amendment rights, specifically addressing the "'plain view' doctrine" and the requirements for warrantless searches and seizures.
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable "searches" and "seizures." In this case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to have probable cause before seizing items in plain view or conducting a full-blown search of an object. This means that officers must have a warrant or valid exception to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances, to justify their actions.
The facts of the case are as follows: On April 18, 1984, a bullet was fired from James Thomas Hicks' apartment, injuring a man in the apartment below. The police entered Hicks' apartment without a warrant, searching for the shooter, victims, and weapons. During their search, they noticed two sets of expensive stereo equipment, which seemed out of place in the otherwise ill-appointed apartment. Suspecting that the equipment was stolen, an officer moved and recorded the serial numbers. It was later confirmed that the equipment had been stolen during an armed robbery, and Hicks was indicted for robbery.
The state trial court granted Hicks' motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the stereo equipment, arguing that the officer's actions constituted a "'search'" separate from the lawful objective of entering the apartment. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, stating that the officer's actions violated the Fourth Amendment. The Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the case, but the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to do so.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a dissenting opinion, pointed out the importance of balancing governmental and private interests. They acknowledged the prevalence of mass-produced goods, where serial numbers are often the only way to identify stolen property. The Court expressed concern that requiring a warrant based on probable cause for every movement of an object could hinder legitimate law enforcement practices. However, the majority opinion held that merely looking at an object in plain view is lawful, but "moving" or "disturbing" it requires probable cause.
Goodyear Tire Case: A Business Law Landmark
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Probable cause vs. reasonable suspicion
Arizona v. Hicks >(1987) addressed the application of the "plain view" doctrine in relation to the Fourth Amendment's requirements for searches and seizures. The case arose from a situation where police entered a suspect's apartment without a warrant due to exigent circumstances. While investigating a shooting in an apartment, a police officer moved certain stereo equipment, which was very fancy and looked out of place, and learned that it had been taken during an armed robbery.
The Court asks whether the police must have probable cause before either seizing an object in plain view or conducting a full-blown search of that object, and concludes that they must. However, this case presents a different question: whether police must have probable cause before conducting a cursory inspection of an item in plain view. Because I conclude that such an inspection is reasonable if the police are aware of facts or circumstances that justify a reasonable suspicion that the item is evidence of a crime, I would reverse the judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals, and therefore dissent.
The "plain view" doctrine holds that, under certain circumstances, the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant. These circumstances include situations where the initial intrusion that brings the police within plain view of such evidence is supported by one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances. The purpose of the "plain view" exception is to spare police who discover weapons or contraband during an otherwise lawful search the trouble of obtaining a warrant to seize those items.
The Court held that when the police officer moved the stereo equipment to record the serial numbers, he conducted a Fourth Amendment "search," unrelated to the objectives of the authorized intrusion. The officer's actions were held to be unrelated to the reasons for the initial entry and exposed to view concealed portions of the apartment or its contents. The "plain view" doctrine cannot be invoked when the police have less than probable cause to believe that the item in question is evidence of a crime or contraband.
The Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. However, there are other situations in which the police may lawfully seize an object upon less than probable cause. The distinction between "looking" at a suspicious object in plain view and "moving" it, even slightly, trivializes the Fourth Amendment.
DWI Laws in North Carolina: What You Need to Know
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Serial numbers as evidence
In the case of Arizona v. Hicks, the US Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. The case revolved around the "'plain view'" doctrine and the requirements for searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
During the investigation of a shooting in James Thomas Hicks' apartment, a police officer noticed expensive stereo equipment that seemed out of place. Suspecting that it was stolen, the officer moved the equipment to record the serial numbers. It was later determined that some of the serial numbers matched those of equipment taken in an armed robbery, and Hicks was indicted for robbery.
The state trial court granted Hicks' motion to suppress the evidence obtained, including the serial numbers, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the officer's actions violated the Fourth Amendment. The Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the case, but the US Supreme Court agreed to do so.
The US Supreme Court concluded that the officer's mere recording of the serial numbers did not constitute a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. However, moving the equipment to record the serial numbers constituted a "'search' separate from the initial lawful objective" of searching for the shooter, victims, and weapons. The Court emphasized that the "plain view" doctrine does not override the requirement for probable cause to conduct a search or seizure.
The case of Arizona v. Hicks highlights the importance of serial numbers as evidence in criminal investigations. Serial numbers can be crucial in identifying stolen property, especially in the case of mass-produced goods where a serial number may be the only distinguishing characteristic. However, the case also established that moving or disturbing an object to examine its serial number constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, requiring probable cause or a warrant.
Case Law Citations: APA Style Guide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Moving vs. inspecting evidence
Arizona v. Hicks (1987) is a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the application of the "plain view" doctrine in relation to the Fourth Amendment's requirements for searches and seizures. The case revolved around the question of whether police must have probable cause before seizing an object in plain view or conducting a full-blown search of that object.
The case established that moving equipment to inspect it constitutes a "search" separate from the lawful objective of entering a residence. In this case, the police entered Hicks' apartment without a warrant due to exigent circumstances, specifically to search for a shooter, victims, and weapons after a bullet was fired through the floor, injuring a man in the apartment below. During this search, the police noticed expensive stereo equipment, which seemed out of place and suspected to be stolen. An officer moved the equipment to record the serial numbers and then reported them to police headquarters, leading to the discovery that the equipment had been stolen.
The Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. The "'plain view' doctrine" allows the police to seize evidence in plain view without a warrant under certain circumstances, such as when the initial intrusion is supported by recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. However, the Court distinguished between "looking" at an object in plain view and "moving" it, concluding that moving an object to investigate requires probable cause.
The decision in Arizona v. Hicks has been criticised for potentially deterring conscientious police officers from lawfully obtaining evidence necessary for convictions. It has also been argued that the requirement of probable cause imposes an unnecessary and impractical burden on law enforcement, hindering legitimate and effective practices.
In conclusion, Arizona v. Hicks established that moving and inspecting evidence constitutes a separate "search" under the Fourth Amendment, requiring probable cause. This decision has had implications for law enforcement practices and evidentiary procedures, with critics arguing that it may hinder the lawful collection of crucial evidence.
Case Law: Understanding the Sources of Law
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The state trial court granted Hicks' motion to suppress the stereo equipment, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.
The case arose from a situation where police entered a suspect's apartment without a warrant and seized weapons and stereo equipment.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view.
