Arizona v. Hicks
480 U.S. 321 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of an item in plain view is only permissible if the police have probable cause to believe that the item is contraband or evidence of a crime. An action by police that exposes concealed portions of an object, such as moving it to see a serial number, constitutes a new search that must be independently supported by probable cause.
Facts:
- A bullet was fired through the floor of James Hicks's apartment, striking and injuring a man in the apartment below.
- Police officers lawfully entered Hicks's apartment under exigent circumstances to search for the shooter, other victims, and weapons.
- During the search, an officer, Nelson, noticed two sets of expensive stereo components that seemed out of place in the otherwise 'squalid' apartment.
- Suspecting the equipment was stolen, Officer Nelson moved some of the components, including a turntable, to read and record their serial numbers.
- Nelson reported the serial numbers by phone to his headquarters.
- He was advised that the turntable had been taken in an armed robbery, at which point he seized it.
Procedural Posture:
- Hicks was indicted for robbery in an Arizona state trial court.
- Hicks filed a motion to suppress the stereo equipment as evidence, which the trial court granted.
- The State of Arizona, as the appellant, appealed the suppression order to the Court of Appeals of Arizona.
- The Court of Appeals of Arizona affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of Hicks, the appellee.
- The State of Arizona's petition for review was denied by the Arizona Supreme Court.
- The State of Arizona petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's action of moving an object that is in plain view to inspect a concealed portion of it, without probable cause to believe the object is evidence of a crime, constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. A police officer's action of moving an object in plain view to inspect a concealed portion of it constitutes a new search, which is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if not supported by probable cause. Merely inspecting what is already exposed to view is not a search, but taking an action unrelated to the objectives of the authorized intrusion that exposes concealed portions of an apartment or its contents is a new invasion of privacy. The plain view doctrine requires probable cause to seize an item, and there is no reason that a search of an item in plain view should be permitted on a lesser standard. To hold otherwise would untether the plain view doctrine from its justification and allow it to be used for general exploratory searches.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes. The judgment should be affirmed because the police officers conducted a search of the stereo equipment without probable cause to believe it was stolen. This opinion is written to emphasize that the case does not address the 'inadvertent discovery' prong of the plain view doctrine from Coolidge v. New Hampshire, a requirement that has never been adopted by a majority of the Court.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
No. The officer's action did not constitute an unreasonable search. The Court's distinction between 'looking' at a suspicious object and 'moving' it a few inches is trivial and creates an unreasonable rule. The officer's suspicion was reasonable and based on specific, articulable facts. The Court's new rule will cause uncertainty and may handicap law enforcement without enhancing any meaningful privacy interests.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
No. The majority answers the wrong question; the proper question is whether police must have probable cause before conducting a 'cursory inspection' of an item in plain view. A cursory inspection, which is minimally intrusive, should be permissible if supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the item is evidence of a crime. This approach properly balances the governmental interest in crime detection against the minimal additional invasion of privacy, a balance consistent with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The majority's bright-line rule requiring probable cause places serious roadblocks on reasonable law enforcement practices.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the 'plain view' doctrine by establishing that probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, is the required standard for both searching and seizing an item. The Court's holding that moving an object to inspect a concealed portion constitutes a new 'search' created a bright-line rule, reinforcing the principle that the Fourth Amendment protects privacy interests, not just possessory ones. This decision prevents the plain view doctrine from becoming a pretext for exploratory searches but has been criticized for potentially hindering police from investigating suspicious items found during lawful entries.
