Arizona v.

Hicks

Facts of the case

A bullet was fired through the floor of Hicks's apartment which injured a man in
the apartment below. To investigate the shooting, police officers entered Hicks
's apartment and found three weapons along with a stocking mask. During the sear
ch, which was done without a warrant, an officer noticed some expensive stereo e
quipment which he suspected had been stolen. The officer moved some of the compo
nents, recorded their serial numbers, and seized them upon learning from police
headquarters that his suspicions were correct.

Question

Was the search of the stereo equipment (a search beyond the exigencies of the or
iginal entry) reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
No. The Court found that the search and seizure of the stereo equipment violated
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Citing the Court's holding in Coolidge v.
New Hampshire (1971), Justice Scalia upheld the "plain view" doctrine which all
ows police officers under some circumstances to seize evidence in plain view wit
hout a warrant. However, critical to this doctrine, argued Scalia, is the requir
ement that warrantless seizures which rely on no "special operational necessitie
s" be done with probable cause. Since the officer who seized the stereo equipmen
t had only a "reasonable suspicion" and not a "probable cause" to believe that t
he equipment was stolen, the officer's actions were not reconcilable with the Co
nstitution.