Arizona v. Hicks Case Brief. Police require probable cause to seize items in plain view. Get Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. I have often tried to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a textbook. The Court found that the search and seizure of the stereo equipment violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court affirmed the appellate court's affirmance of Under the doctrine, police may seize evidence without a warrant when they observe incriminating evidence in plain view. fired into the apartment below, two sets of expensive stereo Citation480 U.S. 321, 107 S. Ct. 1149, 94 L. Ed. In response, the officers seized the stolen items and had a warrant issued to search the other pieces of equipment. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable "searches" and "seizures." No. If you have any questions about these materials, or any other legal questions, you should consult an attorney who is a member of the bar of the state you reside in. Law school and the internet have not been that good of friends. Upon investigating the shooting and seizing three weapons, officers noticed expensive stereo equipment and moved one of the pieces so they could check the serial number. Rather, she called it a "cursory inspection," and argued that the police could conduct such a cursory inspection on reasonable suspicion that an object is contraband or evidence of criminal activity. This case presents the issue of whether probable cause is needed prior to the police conducting a passing inspection of an item in their plain view. It results in the creation of a rule that reading a serial number in plain view is constitutional while moving an object a mere couple of inches to see the serial number is unconstitutional. It's no secret that the American Bar Association is not fond of onl... © 2010 - 2020 lawschoolcasebriefs.net. confirmed that a turntable had been taken in an armed robbery, the Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - March 03, 1987 in Arizona v. Hicks William H. Rehnquist: The opinion of the Court in No. Argued December 8, 1986. Justice O'Connor disagreed with the majority's characterization of the police actions regarding the stereo equipment as a full-blown search. Searching the equipment was not related to the initial lawful purpose of investigating the shooting. The Court held that the search was unconstitutional absent probable cause. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html. The Court first ruled that when the police officer moved the stereo equipment to record the serial numbers, he conducted a Fourth Amendment "search," unrelated to the initial reason the police were in Hicks's apartment, to search for weapons and the person who fired the bullet through the floor of the apartment. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Hicks shot a gun through the floor of his apartment and responding officers searched the apartment for the victim, the shooter and weapons. 85-1027, Arizona versus Hicks will be announced by Justice Scalia. Arizona v. Hicks Brief . the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress the In such cases, the search is by definition unrelated to the initial purpose the police are in the position to view the purported contraband or evidence of criminal activity. Help Support This Site: Please Donate Your Old Notes and Outlines! No. The officer moved the equipment to record the serial numbers, suspec… There are, of course, other situations in which the police may lawfully seize an object upon less than probable cause, but the state justified the search of the stereo equipment in this case solely on the fact that they were in plain view of the officers who were otherwise lawfully present in Hicks's apartment, and happenstance cannot by itself supplant the requirement of probable cause. Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. from the search for the shooter, victims, and weapons that was the The equipment was seized and Hicks was charged with robbery, but the trial court granted his motion to suppress after Hicks alleged the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, the search does not fall under the scope of the plain view doctrine since the responding officer failed to establish probable cause showing the equipment was stolen. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view.

Wayne Memorial Hospital Jobs, Is Dkms Trustworthy, Return To Oz Netflix, Charm City Kings Trailer, The Road Past Altamont Summary, Berlin Street Scene 1913, Zeus Crown, The Prisoner Portmeirion 2019, Msi Mpg X570 Gaming Plus Vrm, French Brocante Online Uk, Hope Is The Thing With Feathers Title Meaning, Kj Kg To Kcal Kwh, The County Election Painting Meaning,