Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Arizona v. Hicks

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentplain viewprobable causestereo equipmentFourth Amendmentplain viewprobable cause

Facts

Police entered respondent's apartment without a warrant after a bullet was fired through the floor, injuring a man below; the entry was justified by exigent circumstances to search for the shooter, other victims, and weapons. During that lawful search, Officer Nelson noticed expensive stereo components that seemed out of place in the apartment and suspected they were stolen. He read and recorded serial numbers, moving some equipment, including a turntable, to do so. After learning by phone that the turntable had been taken in an armed robbery, police seized it, later obtained a warrant for other equipment, and respondent was indicted for the robbery.

Issue

Whether, under the plain view doctrine, police may move stereo equipment to inspect serial numbers and seize evidence when they have only reasonable suspicion, rather than probable cause, to believe the equipment is stolen. Also, whether moving the equipment to expose concealed serial numbers constitutes a separate search under the Fourth Amendment.

Rule

Merely recording serial numbers does not constitute a seizure because it does not meaningfully interfere with possessory interests. But moving property to expose concealed portions is a separate search, and under the plain view doctrine probable cause is required to justify either seizure of an item in plain view or a search of it by moving it for closer inspection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Police in Phoenix lawfully enter Nina Cole's apartment after neighbors report screams and possible gunfire. While checking for injured persons, an officer notices a high-end camera on a shelf, suspects it may be stolen, and tilts it over to read a serial number printed on the bottom, even though he has only a hunch based on the apartment's sparse furnishings.

Was the officer's conduct permissible under the plain view doctrine?

Explanation. The majority held that moving property to expose concealed portions is a separate search, even if the item itself is already in plain view. Plain view does not reduce the level of cause required; probable cause is needed to justify either seizure or a search by moving the item for closer inspection. The court also rejected the idea that any action unrelated to the initial exigency is automatically unreasonable.