An analysis of arizona and hicks

In his concurrence in Stanley v. To say otherwise would be to cut the "plain view" doctrine loose from its theoretical and practical moorings.

Plain sight search

The policeman's actions come within the purview of the Fourth Amendment. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review, and the state eventually petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it. Ohio, U. Brignoni-Ponce, U. Class, U. The officers were lawfully in the apartment pursuant to exigent circumstances, and the discovery of the stereo was inadvertent -- the officers did not "know in advance the location of [certain] evidence and intend to seize it,' relying on the plain view doctrine only as a pretext. If an officer could indiscriminately search every item in plain view, a search justified by a limited purpose -- such as exigent circumstances -- could be used to eviscerate the protections of the Fourth Amendment. On this aspect of the case, we reject, at the outset, the apparent position of the Arizona Court of Appeals that, because the officers' action directed to the stereo equipment was unrelated to the justification for their entry into respondent's apartment, it was ipso facto unreasonable. See id. Thus, while courts require probable cause for more extensive examination, cursory inspections -- including picking up or moving objects for a better view -- require only a reasonable suspicion. Justice O'Connor also dissented, arguing that Nelson's actions be upheld because they constituted a "cursory inspection" rather than a "full-blown search," and could therefore be justified by reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause. The policeman's action cannot be upheld on the ground that it was not a "full-blown search," but was only a "cursory inspection" that could be justified by reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause. New Hampshire, allows police to seize incriminating evidence that is found during a warrantless search, if the material is in plain view. One of the policemen, Officer Nelson, noticed two sets of expensive stereo components, which seemed out of place in the squalid and otherwise ill-appointed four-room apartment.

Brown, U. Justice O'Connor also dissented, arguing that Nelson's actions be upheld because they constituted a "cursory inspection" rather than a "full-blown search," and could therefore be justified by reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause.

For the record makes clear that the contents of the films could not be determined by mere inspection. It perceives a constitutional distinction between reading a serial number on an object and moving or picking up an identical object to see its serial number.

An analysis of arizona and hicks

Nevertheless, the state conceded that Nelson had only a "reasonable suspicion," not "probable cause," to believe that the stereo equipment was stolen--and therefore the search was invalid. Receive free daily summaries of US Supreme Court opinions.

arizona hicks

However, the majority opinion was that the Court was unwilling to create a subcategory of "cursory" searches under the Fourth Amendment, because nothing in the prior opinions of the Court would support such a distinction.

Both courts rejected the state of Arizona's contention that the policeman's actions were justified under the "plain view" doctrine, which had been established in Coolidge v.

Thus, while courts require probable cause for more extensive examination, cursory inspections -- including picking up or moving objects for a better view -- require only a reasonable suspicion.

Today the Court holds for the first time that the requirement of probable cause operates as a separate limitation on the application of the plain view doctrine. New Hampshire, allows police to seize incriminating evidence that is found during a warrantless search, if the material is in plain view. Marbury, F. It may well be that, in such circumstances, no effective means short of a search exist. This distinction between searches based on their relative intrusiveness -- and its subsequent adoption by a consensus of American courts -- is entirely consistent with our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. It was later determined that some of the other serial numbers matched those on other stereo equipment taken in the same armed robbery, and a warrant Page U. Two groups filed "friend of the court" briefs in the case: the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation urged that the lower courts' decisions should be affirmed, while Americans for Effective Law Enforcement urged reversal. Texas v. The State contends that, even if Officer Nelson's search violated the Fourth Amendment, the court below should have admitted the evidence thus obtained under the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule. Please check official sources. Serial numbers are far more helpful and accurate in detecting stolen property than simple police recollection of the evidence. Terry v.

Thus, if the computer had identified as stolen property a component with a visible serial number, the evidence would have been admissible. Issue and Holding: Must an officer establish probable cause in order to invoke the plain view doctrine?

Arizona vs hicks court case

Merely inspecting those parts of the turntable that came into view during the latter search would not have constituted an independent search, because it would have produced no additional invasion of respondent's privacy interest. The State contends that, even if Officer Nelson's search violated the Fourth Amendment, the court below should have admitted the evidence thus obtained under the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule. Hillyard, F. The ruling could be considered a victory for privacy advocates, and a loss for those who advocate stronger law enforcement. Reasoning: The plain view doctrine requires probable cause to be established prior to the search or seizure of a piece of evidence. I'm just very familiar with people converting stolen stereos and TVs into their own use" quoted in a footnote in Justice Powell's dissenting opinion. Georgia, U. Arizona v. In his concurrence in Stanley v. To say otherwise would be to cut the "plain view" doctrine loose from its theoretical and practical moorings.

Ohio, supra, at U.

Rated 8/10 based on 88 review
Download
Arizona v. Hicks