Arizona v. Hicks

1987-03-03

Headline: Ruling limits police power: Court requires probable cause before officers move or inspect items in a home’s plain view, making it harder to seize evidence based only on reasonable suspicion.

Holding: The Court held that police must have probable cause (a strong factual basis to believe a crime occurred) before moving and examining items in plain view inside a home, so the apartment resident’s evidence was properly suppressed.

Real World Impact:

Stops officers from moving or flipping items in a home without probable cause.
Makes evidence taken after mere reasonable suspicion vulnerable to suppression.
Requires police to use other methods (calls, warrants) before inspecting suspected stolen goods.

Topics: police searches, plain view rule, probable cause, stolen property, evidence suppression

Summary

Background

Police entered an apartment after a bullet was fired through the floor to look for the shooter, other victims, and weapons. While searching they found guns and a stocking mask and also noticed two expensive stereo systems in a shabby four-room apartment. An officer moved some components to read serial numbers, phoned headquarters, learned one turntable was linked to an armed robbery, and then seized it; a warrant later allowed seizure of additional equipment. The state trial court suppressed the evidence and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the “plain view” rule lets officers move or examine items in a home when they have less than probable cause. The majority said moving the stereo was a separate search and that probable cause (a strong factual basis to believe the items were stolen or evidence) is required to seize or fully search items in a dwelling. The Court rejected the idea that the exigent-circumstances justification for entering automatically allowed such a search, and it declined to reach whether the officers actually had probable cause or whether the good-faith exception applied.

Real world impact

The decision restricts police actions during home searches: officers cannot flip or move things to inspect hidden serial numbers based only on reasonable suspicion. Investigations that rely on brief inspections now risk evidence suppression unless officers have probable cause or use other lawful methods to confirm the items’ status.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor (joined by others) argued a different rule: a brief, cursory inspection should be allowed on reasonable suspicion, and Justices Powell and O’Connor thought probable cause likely existed on these facts.