# Arizona v. Hicks > Supreme Court of the United States · March 3, 1987 · 480 U.S. 321 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430867 ## Case - **Full name:** Arizona v. Hicks - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** March 3, 1987 - **Citations:** 480 U.S. 321; 55 U.S.L.W. 4258; 107 S. Ct. 1149; 94 L. Ed. 2d 347; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 1056 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Powell - **Judges:** O'Connor'S, Powell'S, Scalia, Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor - **Cited by:** 1,293 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430867 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that the police officer’s act of moving stereo equipment “did constitute a ‘search’ separate and apart from the search for the shooter, victims, and weapons that was the lawful objective of his entry into the apartment.... [and that] taking action, unrelated to the obj… - holding that police officer’s actions in moving stereo equipment came within the purview of the Fourth Amendment as a “search” independent of the search which was justified by the exigent circumstances validating the entry of the apartment and pointing out, “A search is a sear… - holding that, when warrant-less entry into apartment to search for shooter was justified based on exigent circumstances, seizure of stereo equipment in plain view in the apartment was illegal because police did not have probable cause to believe the stereo equipment was eviden… - holding an officer’s “moving of [stereo] equipment . . . constitute[d] a [search] separate and apart from the search for the shooter, victims, and weapons that was the lawful objective of [the police officer’s] entry into the STATE V. NEWBORN 2021-NCCOA-426 Opinion of the Cour… - holding that moving stereo equipment even a few inches to find its serial number, as opposed to reading a serial number already in view, to confirm whether something is stolen property was an unconstitutional search in the absence of existing probable cause to seize the stereo… ## Opinion text Justice Powell’s dissent reasonably asks what it is we would have had Officer Nelson do in these circumstances. Post, at 332. The answer depends, of course, upon whether he had probable cause to conduct a search, a question that was not preserved in this case. If he had, then he should have done precisely what he did. If not, then he should have followed up his suspicions, if possible, by means other than a search-just as he would have had to do if, while walking along the street, he had noticed the same suspicious stereo equipment sitting inside a house a few feet away from him, beneath an open window. It may well be that, in such circumstances, no effective means short of a search exist. But there is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all. Our disagreement with the dissenters pertains to where the proper balance should be struck; we choose to adhere to the textual and traditional standard of probable cause. 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. That was not the question on which certiorari was granted, and we decline to consider it. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Arizona is Affirmed. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9430867. Public record. Not legal advice.