8.2: Arizona v. Hicks
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
Arizona Hicks
LOCATION
Apartment of Hicks
DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY
85-1027 Rehnquist Court
LOWER COURT
Sate Appellate Court
CITATION
480 US 321 (1987)
ARGUED
Dec 8, 1986
DECIDED
Mar 3, 1987
ADVOCATES
John W. Rood, III By appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the respondent
Linda A. Akers Argued the cause for the petitioner
John William Rood for respondent
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 search, which was done without a warrant, an officer noticed some expensive stereo equipment which he suspected had been stolen. The officer moved some of the components, 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 original entry) reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion
6–3 Decision
Majority Opinion by Antonin Scalia
| FOR | AGAINST |
|---|---|
|
Blackmun White Scalia Stevens Brennan Marshall |
Powell Rehnquist O’Connor |
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 allows police officers under some circumstances to seize evidence in plain view without a warrant. However, critical to this doctrine, argued Scalia, is the requirement that warrantless seizures which rely on no "special operational necessities" be done with probable cause. Since the officer who seized the stereo equipment had only a "reasonable suspicion" and not a "probable cause" to believe that the equipment was stolen, the officer's actions were not reconcilable with the Constitution.