Skip to main content
Business LibreTexts

8.2: Arizona v. Hicks

  1. Last updated
  2. Save as PDF
  • Page ID
    54413

    • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    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.

    Contributors and Attributions

    This page titled 8.2: Arizona v. Hicks is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Larry Alvarez.