Brandon Wood

English
5/6/14

Arizona v. Hicks

The controversial court case of Arizona v. Hicks is one that is argued to have violated
Hicks 4th Amendment rights. On April 18, 1984, first responders had arrived on scene where a
man had been struck and injured by a stray bullet that came from the apartment above. Police
officer began to look for the shooter upstairs only to find a vacant apartment. They then began to
search the apartment in which they seized three weapons which included a sawed-off rifle that is
thought to have struck the victim. Officer Nelson, one of the police officers, then noticed a set of
expensive stereo systems that looked "out of place" or like they did not belong there. He looked
the serial numbers of the products and found that they were stolen during an armed robbery. The
officers then got a warrant to seized the stolen items that were stolen and the respondent was
indicted for the robbery.
Now we must pose the question that portrays to the violation of the 4th amendments
rights that are given to Hicks. Were the officers within their rights to convict Hicks for robbery
of the stereo system? or Can the plain view doctrine be invoked when the police have less
than a probable cause to believe that the item in question is evidence of a crime or contraband?
The suspect does have a standing to the plain view doctrine because the officer had less
than a probable cause to search the stereo systems because they had to physically move the items
to get the serial numbers in which they searched to find stolen.Had they not have been curious
enough to have moved the speakers, then the officers would not have violated the 4th
amendment because of the plain view doctrine. But, after finding out that the items were
stolen, the officers were granted a warrant to seized the items. As a result, Hick was convicted
for the robbery.
I believe that the officers were in the wrong due to the violation of the 4th amendment.
The officers were in the wrong as to search the stereo system as it is not evidence from the initial
crime or contraband. Hicks was convicted to the wrong crime. Therefore Hicks shall not be
convicted for robbery. However, he should still face the court due to the injury of the man that he
shot before fleeing.