Legal Document

480 U.S. 321 107 S.Ct. 1149 94 L.Ed.2d 347 ARIZONA, Petitionerv.James Thomas HICKS. No. 85-1027. Argued Dec. 8, 1986. Decided March 3, 1987. Syllabus A bullet fired through the floor of respondent's apartment injured a man on below. Police entered to search for shooter, other victims, and weapons, there seized three weapons discovered stocking-cap mask. While there, one policemen noticed two sets expensive stereo components and, suspecting that they were stolen, read recorded their serial numbers—moving some them, including turntable, do so—and phoned in numbers headquarters. Upon learning turntable had been taken an armed robbery, he it immediately. Respondent was subsequently indicted but state trial court granted his motion suppress evidence seized, Arizona Court Appeals affirmed. Relying upon statement Mincey v. Arizona, 437 385, 98 2408, 57 290, warrantless must be "strictly circumscribed by exigencies which justify its initiation," held policeman's obtaining violated Fourth Amendment because unrelated shooting, exigent circumstance justified initial entry search. Both courts rejected contention actions under "plain view" doctrine. Held: 1. The come within purview Amendment. mere recording did not constitute "seizure" since meaningfully interfere with possessory interest either or equipment. However, moving equipment "search" separate apart from lawful objective entering apartment. fact uncovered nothing great personal value respondent is irrelevant. Pp. 324-325. 2. doctrine does render "reasonable" 325-329. (a) action directed ipso facto unreasonable simply justification That lack relationship always exists when applies. In saying addressing scope primary itself, overruling implication. 325-326. (b) invalid because, as State concedes, policeman only "reasonable suspicion"—i.e., less than probable cause believe—that stolen. Probable required invoke applies seizures. It would illogical hold object seizable lesser grounds, during seizure, have needed obtain warrant if known premises. believe stolen also necessary support here, whether legal authority move could found inevitable concomitant seize it, consequence independent power objects plain view. 326-328. 3. cannot upheld ground "full-blown search" "cursory inspection" reasonable suspicion instead cause. truly cursory inspection—one involves merely looking at what already exposed view, without disturbing it—is purposes, therefore even require suspicion. This unwilling create subcategory "cursory" searches 328-329. 146 Ariz. 533, 707 P.2d 331, SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, post, p. ----. POWELL, dissenting REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, joined, Linda Ann Akers, Phoenix, Ariz., petitioner. John William Rood, respondent. Justice SCALIA Court. 1 Coolidge New Hampshire, 403 443, 91 2022, 29 564 (1971), we said certain circumstances seizure police item comes view private area may See id., 465-471, 2037-2041 (plurality opinion); 505-506, 2057-2058 (Black, dissenting); 521-522, 2065-2066 (WHITE, dissenting). We certiorari, 475 1107, 106 1512, 89 912 (1986), present case decide this invoked question crime contraband. 2 * On April 18, 1984, apartment, striking injuring officers arrived weapons. They sawed-off rifle, course 3 One policemen, Officer Nelson, components, seemed out place squalid otherwise ill-appointed four-room Suspecting Bang Olufsen order so—which then reported phone being advised later determined matched those same obtained executed well. robbery. 4 seized. conceded search, although warrantless, shooting. viewed numbers, however, additional exigency. 290 (1978), "warrantless 'strictly initiation,' " 393, 2413 (citation omitted), conduct Amendment, requiring derived excluded. 534-535, 332-333 (1985). courts—the explicitly implication State's Nelson's supra. Supreme denied review, petition. II 5 As matter, argues constituted neither nor meaning agree seizure. To sure, first step process eventually deprived "meaningfully interfere" equipment, amount Maryland Macon, 472 463, 469, 105 2778, 2782, 86 370 6 into Merely inspecting parts came latter produced no invasion privacy interest. Illinois Andreas, 463 765, 771, 103 3319, 3324, 77 1003 (1983). But taking action, objectives authorized intrusion, concealed portions contents, produce new unjustified validated entry. why, contrary POWELL's suggestion, 333, "distinction between 'looking' suspicious 'moving' few inches" much more trivial purposes matters any respondent—serial rather (what might conceivably hidden behind equipment) letters photographs. happens disclose bottom turntable. III 7 remaining 8 aspect reject, outset, apparent position officers' unreasonable. regard doctrine; where purpose justifying entry, invocation superfluous. supra, U.S., many cases acknowledging can legitimate beyond scope. 9 turn, then, application facts case. "It well established warrant," 465, 2037 opinion) (emphasis added). Those include situations "[w]here intrusion brings such [evidence] supported . recognized exceptions requirement," ibid., exigent-circumstances here. absurd say lawfully premises, moved closer examination. clear, therefore, here valid sustained 10 There doubt done so Nelson has conceded, suspicion," means something Brief Petitioner 18-19.* ruled Dicta Payton York, 445 573, 587, 100 1371, 1380, 63 639 (1980), suggested standard met, our opinions Texas Brown, 460 730, 1535, 75 502 (1983), regarded issue unresolved, see 742, n. 7, 1543 746, 1545 (STEVENS, judgment). 11 now required. cut loose theoretical practical moorings. theory consists extending nonpublic places home, seizures are presumptively unreasonable, police's longstanding make public 586-587, 1380. And extension desirability sparing police, whose viewing place, inconvenience risk—to themselves preservation evidence—of going warrant. 468, 2039 opinion). Dispensing need worlds permitting require, i.e., No reason why should routinely 12 say, course, never where, example, minimally intrusive operational necessities practicable detecting types crime. See, e.g., United States Cortez, 449 411, 101 690, 66 621 (1981) (investigative detention vehicle suspected transporting illegal aliens); Brignoni-Ponce, 422 873, 95 2574, 45 607 (1975) (same); Place, 462 696, 709, 9, 2637, 2645 110 (1983) (dictum) (seizure drug dealer's luggage airport permit exposure specially trained dog). special relied however—but items officer's alone supplant requirement 13 considerations preclude us holding that, though occurred grounds. dwelling-place requires cause, practicality requirement. Although protected injunction against quite different seizures, 747-748, S.Ct., 1546 judgment), inferior worth necessarily protection. elsewhere drawn categorical distinction insofar concerns degree establish reasonableness particular before Indeed, treat liberally especially erode plurality's warning "the 'plain view' used extend general exploratory another until incriminating last emerges." 466, 2038. short, 14 O'CONNOR's dissent suggests uphold search," noted, send judges thicket law, seek creature uncertain description inspection yet search." Nothing prior supports distinction, dictum Stewart's concurrence Stanley Georgia, 394 557, 571, 1243, 1251, 22 542 (1969), reference "mere describes, close observation lies sight. 15 reasonably asks these circumstances. Post, answer depends, preserved If had, precisely did. not, followed up suspicions, possible, search—just if, while walking along street, sitting inside house feet away him, beneath open window. circumstances, effective short exist. realization Constitution sometimes insulates criminality protect all. Our disagreement dissenters pertains proper balance struck; choose adhere textual traditional 16 contends below admitted thus "good faith" exception exclusionary rule. certiorari granted, decline consider it. 17 For reasons stated, judgment 18 Affirmed. 19 concurring. 20 I write emphasize present, occasion address, so-called "inadvertent discovery" prong plain-view Warrant Clause. 469-471, 2040-2041, (1971) "requirement" accepted majority accept dissent's assertion inadvertently satisfy dictates join today inadvertence discovery components' numbers. conducted absent 21 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, dissenting. briefly highlight seem me unfortunate consequences Court's decision. 23 Today holds time operates limitation doctrine.1 plurality "immediately them; Id., 2038 omitted). case, approve All pertinent identified frequently closets, opening drawers trunks, "rummaging around." properly emphasizes results minimal privacy. nevertheless "merely at" lawful, ante, 328, "moving" "disturbing" investigate 324, 328. illustrate unreasonableness distinction. 24 both based specific, articulable facts. unwise concede absence arose struck What saw hardly occupied law-abiding citizens. .25-caliber automatic pistol lay living room floor. During concededly .45-caliber automatic, .22-caliber, littered paraphernalia. App. 29. observed type stolen.2 25 fair ask Accepting concession lacked components. Neither remained premises forcibly prevented removal. testimony indicates able components.3 number "turn around turn upside down." 19. noted telephoned National Crime Information Center check them Center's computerized listing property. computer confirmed least basis information, proved 26 unlawful agrees seizure." Ante, 324. Thus, property component visible number, admissible. further "Officer 'search'. ." Ibid. perceives constitutional reading picking identical number. unmistakably concludes "search turntable." 325. With all respect, "looking" inches trivializes Amendment.4 rule will uncertainty, deter conscientious convict guilty persons. Apart importance rationality interpretation today's decision handicap law enforcement enhancing interests. Accordingly, dissent. 27 Powell 28 gives right wrong question. seizing conducting full-blown object, must. agree. my presents question: Because conclude aware crime, reverse Appeals, Stewart summarized requirements thought satisfied First, area. Second, officer discover "inadvertently." Third, apparent" observe contraband, subject 737, 1540-1541, expressly adopted "as considered four Members [the plurality] obviously point discussion issue." dispute satisfied. pursuant inadvertent—the 'know advance location [certain] intend it,' relying pretext." (quoting 470, 2040). Instead, focuses requirement; adequate examination 30 prevent "general, rummaging person's belongings." 467, indiscriminately every limited purpose—such circumstances—could eviscerate protections relevance apparent." explained: "Of original [for present] immediately emerges. Cf. [394 557], 571-572 [89 1251-1252, 542] [ (1969) ] (Stewart, result)." 466-467, 2038-2039. 31 doctrine, item, Such authorizing searches. When makes determine indeed "exploratory rummaging." Only "reasonably suspects" inspected, perhaps importantly, limited. reasonable, across verify wish go 32 Stewart. cited Coolidge, federal agents acted defendant's desk. gambling material described movie films, proceeded exhibit films projector, thereafter arrested defendant possession obscene matter. agreed film suppressed, doing case: "This criminal activity, record clear contents inspection." 1251 added) (footnote 33 Following overwhelming Professor LaFave summarizes courts, (not sense) contains fruit, instrumentality, crime." W. LaFave, Search Seizure § 6.7(b), 717 (2d ed. 1987); 345 ("It generally assumed improper unnamed article noting brand name identifying characteristics surface"). extensive examination, inspections—including better view—require Marbury, 732 F.2d 390, 399 (CA5 1984) (police inspect evidence); Hillyard, 677 1336, 1342 (CA9 1982) give documents brief perusal suspicion"); Wright, 667 793, 798 ("[A]n 'reasonable suspicion' evidence"); Roberts, 619 379, 381 1980) ("Police ignore significance full import positively ascertained examination"); Ochs, 595 1247, 1257-1258, (CA2 1979) (Friendly, J.) (same). 34 several applied reasonable-suspicion factual almost Noll, 116 Wis.2d 343 N.W.2d 391 (1984) (officer, seeing television, numbers); Riedinger, 374 866 (ND 1985) (police, executing drugs, microwave oven); People Dorris, Ill.App.3d 660, Ill.Dec. 442 N.E.2d 951 (1982) note account deposit slip property, checking external identification proper); Proctor, Wash.App. 274, 529 (1974) (upholding notation calculators); Eddington, Mich.App. 210, 178 686 (1970) heels shoes), rev'd 387 Mich. 551, 198 297 (1972). 35 relative intrusiveness—and subsequent adoption consensus American courts—is entirely consistent jurisprudence. long vary intrusiveness, "may interests strong countervailing governmental [search] specific facts" contraband 706, 2644, Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 654, 99 1391, 1396, 59 660 (1979), permissibility practice judged balancing individual's promotion careful best served stops hesitated adopt standard." Jersey T.L.O., 469 325, 341, 733, 743, 83 720 prevention detection. Terry Ohio, 392 1, 22, 88 1868, 1880, 889 (1968). test sufficiently "substantial," "operational [a cause] crimes." 704, 2643. 36 strongly caused miniscule. transitory dealer "severe, brief, cherished security" 24-25, 1881-1882. 37 Weighed major gains enforcement. use tracing powerful tool. Serial far helpful accurate simple recollection evidence. York Class, 106, 111, 960, 964, 81 (1986) (observing numbers). Given prevalence mass goods national economy, often sure method meets 38 Unfortunately, desire "bright-line" test, ignores substantial body precedent serious roadblocks practices. alone, examine advantages approach too remote tangible severe damage inflicts 39 Even appropriate standard, little officers, inquiring grievously tools thief (a rifle stocking mask) small inordinately relation surroundings favored targets larcenous "flexible, common-sense standard" 40 existence upsets widely respectfully Contrary suggestion dissent, ----, precludes considering probable-cause declined "address whether, lower sufficient 7. 'warrant caution belief' useful crime; demand showing belief correct likely true false." Carroll States, 267 132, 162, 280, 288, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925)). (POWELL, judgment) (leaving view). recognizes, 326, statements dicta. Responding cross-examination, explained "based years' experience. worked burglary crimes throughout period I'm just very familiar people converting stereos TV's own use." 28-29. testified about foot back set wall. 20. Presumably large enough backs them. Numerous articles watches cameras, credit cards. Assume example suspects watches, Under decision, watch lying face down, turning over Moreover, ability depend light conditions time. Would difference officer, suspicion, pocket flashlight turned clearly visible?

Classification Label: 0