Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 1987 U.S. Lexis 1056 (1987) - Assignment Example

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987) Facts: A bullet was fired in the respondent’s apartment building, went through the floor of the apartmentand injured another individual in the apartment directly below it. A subsequent search by the police to the defendant’s apartment revealed three weapons. However, in the course of the search, one of the policemen noticed two sets of expensive electrical equipment, and noticing the state of the apartment, decided to look at them closely. The officer moved some of the equipment to get a look at their serial numbers, which he duly recorded and phoned in to the police.

He was informed that one of the equipment, a turntable, had been stolen in an armed robbery, so he seized it and got a search warrant to search the rest of the apartment. It was then discovered that some of the other stereo equipment had also been stolen in an armed robbery, for which the respondent was subsequently indicted. Issue:The main issue in this case is whether the initial entry into the respondent’s apartment, and the subsequent recording of the serial numbers on the stereo equipment constituted a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

This issue is a decision on whether the evidence had been seized illegally, and so should be suppressed. The issue is also, whether the exigent circumstances of the initial entry into the apartment allowed for the seizing of evidence related to a non-exigent matter; the stolen stereo equipment. Decision of the court:Originally, the state trial court held that the evidence used in the case had been seized; therefore, they granted the respondent’s motion to suppress the said evidence. This decision was also upheld by the Court of Appeals of Arizona, who conceded that the initial entry to the respondent’s living quarters was justified by the exigent circumstances of the case.

However, the subsequent obtaining of the serial numbers from the stereo equipment qualified as an additional search not covered by the initial exigent circumstances. The Arizona Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the decision.Reasoning of the Court:Going by a statement in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) that a search not supported by a warrant must be strictly supported by the exigent circumstances following the search, the court decided to uphold the suppression of evidence. The Supreme Court reasoned that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights when they embarked on a search not justified by the first facts.

The court also reasoned that the police’s actions were not justified by the plain view doctrine, since the officer who recorded the serial numbers had to move some equipment to see the numbers. In Illinois v. Andreas (463 U.S. 765, 771 1983), the mere inspection of the parts of the equipment that could be seen could not have amounted to a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. However, the actions of the police in moving some equipment to see the serial numbers amounted to a warrantless search.

Rule of the Case:The main rule applied in this case is that the exigent circumstances that allowed the initial search did not cover the subsequent inspection of the stereo equipment by the police; it amounted to a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.Summary of Concurring and Dissenting OpinionsConcurring Opinions:The majority of the Court concurred that the case in question is not support by the inadvertent discovery in the plain view doctrine. In concurring, the judges used the statement in Coolidge v.

New Hampshire (403 U.S. 443 1971) that proposed that the plain view doctrine may only be sued if it is immediately apparent to the law enforcers that evidence can be plainly seen. Dissenting Opinions:The main dissent in the case noted that the identification of the serial numbers involved minimal invasion of privacy, since the police did not move from object to object until evidence was acquired. In Texas v. Brown (460 U.S. 730 1983), the decision was based on the fact that a degree of suspicion that is lower than probable cause for a crime is enough justification for a seizure of evidence.

Comments:I agree with the dissenting opinions in this case, that the subsequent search in the respondent’s apartment over and above the initial search violated Fourth Amendment Rights. The plain view doctrine cannot be used in this case since the officer had to move some equipment to read the serial numbers. Even though the degree of suspicion is present in the case, the degree to which it is seen is not lower that the probable cause, since no crime had been noted. ReferencesCoolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)Illinois v.

Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 (1983)Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978)Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983)