480 U.S. 321 (1987)
On April 18, 1984, a bullet was fired through the floor of respondent Hicks's apartment, striking and injuring a man in the apartment below. Police officers arrived and entered the apartment to search for the shooter, other victims, and weapons.1 They found and seized three weapons, including a sawed-off rifle, and discovered a stocking-cap mask during the search.2
One of the policemen, Officer Nelson, noticed two sets of expensive stereo components that seemed out of place in the squalid and otherwise ill-appointed four-room apartment.3 Suspecting that the components were stolen, he read and recorded their serial numbers, moving some of the components including a Bang and Olufsen turntable to read their serial numbers, and then reported the numbers by phone to his headquarters.4
On being advised that the turntable had been taken in an armed robbery, Officer Nelson seized it immediately.5 It was later determined that some of the other serial numbers matched those on stereo equipment taken in the same armed robbery, and a warrant was obtained and executed to seize that equipment as well.6 Respondent Hicks was subsequently indicted for the robbery.7
The state trial court granted Hicks's motion to suppress the evidence that had been seized from the stereo components.8 The Court of Appeals of Arizona affirmed the suppression order.9 The Arizona Supreme Court denied review.10 The State of Arizona filed a petition for certiorari, which the United States Supreme Court granted to address the application of the plain view doctrine in these circumstances.11
Whether the recording of serial numbers constituted a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?12
A seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment requires a meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in the property at issue.13
No. Officer Nelson's mere recording of the serial numbers from the stereo components in Hicks's apartment did not meaningfully interfere with Hicks's possessory interest in the equipment itself or the numbers.14 Therefore it did not amount to a seizure even though it was the first step toward eventual deprivation of the property.15
The recording of the serial numbers did not constitute a seizure.16
Whether moving stereo components to read their serial numbers constituted a search separate from the initial lawful entry into the apartment?17
A distinct search occurs when police take action unrelated to the objectives of an authorized intrusion that exposes to view concealed portions of the premises or its contents, thereby producing a new invasion of privacy interests.18
Yes. Officer Nelson's moving of the stereo components, including the Bang and Olufsen turntable, to read and record their serial numbers constituted a search separate from the initial lawful entry and search for the shooter, victims, and weapons.19 The movement was unrelated to the exigent circumstances and exposed concealed portions of the equipment.20
Moving the stereo components constituted a separate search.21
Whether the plain view doctrine may be invoked when police have only reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause to believe that an item in plain view is evidence of a crime or contraband?22
Invocation of the plain view doctrine to justify either a seizure or a search of an item requires probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or contraband.23 A lesser standard such as reasonable suspicion is insufficient.24 The doctrine extends public-place seizure authority into private premises only when the warrant standard is met.25
No. Although Officer Nelson possessed a reasonable suspicion that the stereo components were stolen, the State conceded the absence of probable cause.26 The plain view doctrine therefore could not justify the separate search or the subsequent seizure of the equipment.27 The Court held that probable cause is required because the doctrine extends the authority to seize items in public places to private premises only when the warrant standard is met.28
The plain view doctrine may not be invoked when police have only reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause.29
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White concurred in the judgment but wrote separately to emphasize that this case does not present the inadvertent discovery prong of the plain view doctrine.30 He noted that this requirement has never been accepted by a judgment supported by a majority of the Court.31 Therefore he joined the majority opinion without regard to whether the officers' discovery of the serial numbers was inadvertent.32
White stressed that the officers conducted a search absent probable cause that the equipment was stolen.33 This required affirmance of the Arizona Court of Appeals.34
Joined by The Chief Justice And Justice O'connor
Justice Powell dissented and joined Justice O'Connor's opinion.35 He wrote separately to highlight the unfortunate consequences of the Court's decision.36 He argued that the plurality opinion in Coolidge required only that it be immediately apparent the items were evidence.37
No general exploratory search occurred here because all objects were in plain view and could be identified as frequently stolen items.38 Powell contended that the distinction between merely looking at a suspicious object and moving it even a few inches trivializes the Fourth Amendment.39 The officers' suspicion was reasonable and based on specific articulable facts including twelve years of experience with stolen stereos.40
The new rule will cause uncertainty and handicap law enforcement without enhancing privacy interests.41
Joined by The Chief Justice And Justice Powell
Justice O'Connor dissented and was joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Powell.42 She argued that the Court answered the wrong question by focusing on full seizures and searches rather than cursory inspections of items in plain view.43 She maintained that a cursory inspection to determine whether an item is evidence of crime is reasonable if supported by reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause.44
The additional intrusion is minimal while the law enforcement gains from using serial numbers to trace stolen property are substantial.45 O'Connor relied on the balance of governmental and privacy interests.46 She cited precedent from state and federal courts accepting the reasonable suspicion standard for such inspections.47
The majority's bright-line approach ignores substantial precedent and places roadblocks before reasonable law enforcement practices.48