NoemiDelgado

May7,2014

Arizonav.Hicks(1987)
Thefactsofthecase,statedbyJusticeScalia,areasfollows:Afterabulletwasfiredthrough
thefloorofanapartmentbuilding,injuringthemanbelow,policeofficersenteredtheapartmentofthe
allegedshooter.Theshooterwasnotintheapartmentbuttheyfoundthreeweaponsandastockingcap
mask.OfficerNelsonbecamesuspiciousofrobberywhenhesawtwosetsofveryexpensivestereo
componentsinthesimple,unadornedapartment.Hemovedsomeofthecomponents,includinga
turntable,sothathecouldgettheserialnumber.Afterreportingtheserialnumbertothepolice
department,hewasinformedthattheturntablehadbeenstoleninanarmedrobbery.Thepoliceofficers
seizedtheequipmentandlatercamebackwithawarranttoretrieveotherstolencomponents.Hicks
wasarrestedforrobbery.Thelegalquestionthathasbeenbroughtupbythiscaseis,Werethepolice
officerswithintheirrightstoconvictHicksforrobberyofthestereo?
Hickscanclaimprotectionunderthe4thamendment,accordingtoCAv.Ciraolo,becausehe
hadstandingandwassearchedbygovernmentofficials.Therulingthatcanbeusedtoassessthelegality
ofthepoliceofficerssearchistheChimelv.CA.Themajorityopinionofthiscasestatesthat,Forthe
routinesearchofaroomotherthanthatinwhichanarrestoccurs,orforsearchingdeskdrawersor
otherclosedorconcealedareasinthatroomitself,absentwellrecognizedexceptions,asearchwarrant
isrequired.Althoughanarrestwasnottakingplace,thepolicestillhadtocomplywiththislawbecause
theydidnothaveasearchwarrant.
ThepoliceofficerswhosearchedHicksapartmentonApril18,1984,failedtoabidebythe
rulingofChimelv.CAandviolatedrightsgiventoHicksunderthe4thamendment.Hicksclearlyhad
anassumptionofprivacyinsideofhisprivateresidence.Havinganexpectationofprivacyinsideones
ownhomeis,withoutadoubt,themostreasonableexpectationofprivacyapersoncanhave.Itis
inarguablethatHickshadstanding,andwasthereforeprotectedbythe4thamendment.AsstatedinCA
v.Chimel,inorderforthepolicetolegallysearchformorethanwhatwasinplainsight,theywould
haveneededasearchwarrant.Withoutawarrant,theydidnothavetherighttoaccesstheserialcode
numbersonthebackofthestereocomponentsby,movingsomeofthecomponents,includingaBang
andOlufsenturntable(AZvHicks).Theofficersdidnotjustlookaroundforweapons,theymoved
andmanipulatedHickspossessionsinordertoaccessinformationthatwasnotatallinplainview.
Becausetheyusedunlawfulmethodstoaccesstheserialnumbers,whichishowtheyfoundoutthe
equipmentwasstolen,theywerenotwithintheirlegalboundstoconvictHicksforrobbery.
ThepoliceofficerswhoconvictedHicksforrobberyofthestereosystemsteppedbeyondtheir
rightsbymovinghisbelongingswithoutasearchwarrant.Hickshadclearlegalstandingandshouldhave
beengiventherighttoprivacyinhishome,sincetherewasnowarrantinvolvedinthesearch.