## Facts

- A bullet fired through the floor of James Thomas Hicks’s apartment injured a person in the apartment below.
- Police entered Hicks’s apartment without a warrant to look for the shooter, other victims, and weapons; they seized three weapons and found a stocking-cap mask.
- While inside, an officer saw expensive stereo components that appeared out of place in the apartment.
- The officer read and recorded serial numbers, moving some components (including a turntable) to see the numbers, and relayed the numbers to headquarters.
- Headquarters reported the turntable was stolen in an armed robbery; the officer seized it, and Hicks was indicted for that robbery.
- The trial court suppressed the stereo evidence; the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the serial-number inspection exceeded the scope of the emergency entry and rejecting plain view.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and affirmed suppression.

## Issues

1. Whether moving stereo components to read serial numbers during a lawful emergency entry is a Fourth Amendment “search” or “seizure.”
2. Whether the plain view doctrine permits such a warrantless search and ensuing seizure when officers have only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, that the items are stolen.

## Decision

- The Court held that recording serial numbers, without more, was not a “seizure” because it did not meaningfully interfere with Hicks’s possessory interests.
- The Court held that moving the stereo components to view serial numbers was a separate Fourth Amendment “search” beyond the justified emergency search.
- The Court held the plain view doctrine did not justify the search or seizure because the officer lacked probable cause at the time he moved the equipment; reasonable suspicion was insufficient.
- The suppression order was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Physical manipulation of property to obtain information not already exposed to view constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search,” even if the movement is slight.
- Plain view does not authorize an additional search (such as moving an item) to confirm suspected incriminating character without probable cause.
- Warrantless seizures under plain view generally require probable cause, absent “special operational necessities.”
- A lawful exigent-circumstances entry does not permit unrelated investigative steps that fail ordinary Fourth Amendment requirements.

## Conclusion

During a lawful emergency entry, police may not move property to inspect serial numbers absent probable cause, and the plain view doctrine does not permit warrantless seizures based only on reasonable suspicion.


Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)