Arizona v. Hicks
Citation and Court
480 U.S. 321 (1987) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Officers entered Hicks’s apartment without a warrant after a bullet was fired through the floor injuring a man below. During the lawful emergency entry, an officer noticed expensive stereo equipment that seemed out of place in the squalid apartment. He moved the equipment to read the serial numbers, called them in, and confirmed they were stolen. Hicks moved to suppress the evidence discovered when the officer moved the stereo.
Issue
Does the plain-view doctrine permit an officer to move an object to examine it for evidence of a crime when the officer has only reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) that the object is evidence of criminal activity?
Holding
No; the plain-view doctrine requires probable cause to believe an object is evidence of a crime before an officer may seize or otherwise search it; reasonable suspicion is insufficient.
Rule / Doctrine
The plain-view doctrine permits seizure of an item without a warrant only if (1) the officer is lawfully in a position from which the item is viewed, (2) the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent (i.e., the officer has probable cause to believe it is evidence of a crime), and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access. Moving an object to check serial numbers constitutes a search requiring probable cause, not merely reasonable suspicion.
Significance
Hicks clarifies that plain view is a seizure doctrine, not a search doctrine—it does not permit additional investigation of items already in view without probable cause. The holding forecloses a “reasonable suspicion” standard for plain-view inspections, maintaining the line between Terry stops (reasonable suspicion for brief investigative detention) and full Fourth Amendment searches (requiring probable cause or warrant).