Arizona v. Hicks

Arizona v. Hicks 489 U.S. 321 (1987) Facts: A bullet was fired through the foot of the respondent’s opportunity which origind defective to a man. The police straightway entered the respondent’s opportunity to restrain if there were other victims and their exploration yielded three weapons and a stocking cap misdeclare. One of the responding cops noticed an costly looking stereo element which seemed loose delay the ill-maintained hall. Suspecting that said stereo and turntable were not legally obtained, the cop annals the serial reckon of the means and reported them to their police office. Note that the cop had to impel the stereos in dispose to see the serial reckons. Upon receiving commendation from the office that the topic stereos were enslaved in an guarded plundering, the police manager firm to arrest the equipment and finish a plundering impeach counter the respondent. Both the avow courts refused to countenance the policeman’s enjoyment as grave exploration and pillage lower the evident slip article. Issues: 1.      Whether or not the annalsing of the serial reckon form a exploration and pillage 2.      Whether or not the exploration and pillage is grave lower the evidentslip article Holding: 1.      Mere annalsing of the serial reckon does not form exploration and pillage.  However, the act of tender the meanss in dispose to see the serial reckons is violative of the Fourth Amendment suitable counter ungrave exploration and pillage. 2.      The exploration and pillage of the stereo cannot be justified lower the evident slip article. Majority Theory delivered by Justice Scalia 1.      The annalsing did not “meaningfully interfere” delay respondent's possessory origin in either the serial reckons or the equipment, and hence did not sum to a pillage. However, it is the tender of the equipment that performed subjoined irruption of the respondent’s retirement. This cannot be justified by the exigent specialty which allowed for the police managers’ judicious entrance. The reality that the serial reckons did not enjoy an native special prize is not adequate to better the policeman’s hazard. 2.      The Court held that although the qualification of exigent specialty may not be applied in this predicament accordingly the closeness of the stereo is not allied to the shooting bright, the evident slip article may be utilized. Nevertheless, the policeman’s “grave distrust” that the stereo was stolen is not ample to exchange for “credible origin.” The Court declares that the similar flatten of credible origin needed for the issuance of a exploration secure forms an qualitative necessary for the spell of the evident slip article. 3.      As for the dissenting theorys, the seniority theory responded that a desultory slip, which merely involves looking and not irritant, is not simple considered a exploration and accordingly, a grave distrust is not required. Justice White, concurring Justice White emphasized the spiritual of “inadvertent discovery” in evident slip explorationes, antagonistic to the standing of Justice O’Connor. Justice O'Connor, delay whom the Chief Justice and Justice Powell append, dissenting Justice O’Connor is of the theory that there must be project betwixt full-blown exploration and desultory explorationes, in that the perishing grave distrust that the item forms an sign of a enormity allure content to suffice the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Powell, delay whom the Chief Justice and Justice O'Connor append, dissenting Justice Powell proposes that the tender of likely item is merely a minimal intrusion of retirement. He elevate says that the separation betwixt looking and tender “trivializes the Fourth Amendment” which may origin hesitation for upright police managers.