'Case Brief on Arizona versus Hicks\r'

'Case Brief: genus Arizona v. Hicks The bullet was fired through the defendant’s apartment floor and went in to the apartment down the stairs and hit an individual who then called the police. Police responded to the concomitant and went first to the apartment where the bullet entered. The defendant, Hicks, was not in the apartment at the time, but the policemans appoint and seized three guns and a stocking-cap mask, which were both plain sight. One of the officers truism two sets of stereo system equipment that looked like they didn‘t conk there.The officer moved two turntables of the top of the equipment; the officer recorded their serial numbers and found them to be property stolen in a recent gird looting. Mr. Hicks was found and charged with multiple crimes, released, and now the situate appeals. The prosecution argued that since there were exigent component to expect the defendant’s home, any evidence found in â€Å"â€Å"plain sight”â₠¬Â was seized legally. The defense contend the validity of the search, claiming that the search of the stereo equipment was unwarranted establish on its appearance alone and violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.The defendant is found flagitious of the initial charges, but all evidence relating to the robbery charges is govern fruit of an illicit search by the state trial court and the Arizona act of Appeals. When the Arizona despotic Court denied review, the United States Supreme Court accepted the State’s predication for a hearing. The Supreme Court first command that the warrantless entry by the officers, under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, was valid. The court then ruled that the recording of the equipment’s serial numbers did not constitute a search or seizure.However, when the officer moved the turntable it was held to be a let on search, apart from the search for the defendant and his firearms. It was the court’s ruling that the officer did not have presumable cause, only reasonable suspicion to search the stereo equipment. The evidence seized after the discovery of the turntables constituted unlawful search. The lower court’s decision was affirmed. bestow Cited http://www. casebriefs. com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-weinreb/the-fourth-amendment-arrest-and-search-and-seizure/arizona-v-hicks\r\n'