Plain view

Question 1

Arizona v Hicks

Answer 1

Facts
On April 18, 1984, a bullet was fired through the floor of the respondent’s apartment, injuring a man in the apartment below.
Police officers entered the respondent’s apartment without a warrant to search for the shooter, other victims, and weapons.
During this lawful entry, they discovered and seized three weapons and a stocking-cap mask.
Additionally, Officer Nelson noticed expensive stereo components that appeared out of place in the poorly furnished apartment.
Suspecting they were stolen, he moved some components, including a turntable, to record their serial numbers.
Upon verifying that the turntable was stolen, he seized it, leading to the respondent’s indictment for robbery.

Issue
The main issue before the Court was whether the “plain view” doctrine justifies the warrantless seizure of an item inside a residence when the police have less than probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or contraband.
Additionally, whether moving objects to view their serial numbers constitutes a search and, if so, whether such a search requires probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that moving objects to record their serial numbers constitutes a search separate from the objectives justifying the officers’ entry into the apartment.
Furthermore, the Court decided that the “plain view” doctrine requires probable cause to justify the search and seizure of items observed in plain view during a lawful search.
Consequently, Officer Nelson’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment because he had only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, to believe the stereo equipment was stolen.

Question 2

Minnesota v Dickerson

Answer 2

Facts
In November 1989, two Minneapolis police officers patrolling in a high drug activity area observed Timothy Dickerson leaving an apartment complex known for narcotics traffic. Noticing the police, Dickerson abruptly changed direction, which raised the officers’ suspicions. They decided to stop him for a patdown search, suspecting he might be involved in criminal activity and could be armed. During the patdown, one officer felt a small lump in Dickerson’s jacket, which he identified as crack cocaine upon further manipulation through the fabric. The substance was confirmed to be cocaine, leading to Dickerson’s arrest and charges for possession of a controlled substance.

Issue
The central issue in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment permits the seizure of contraband detected through a police officer’s sense of touch during a protective patdown search that was initially justified to find weapons.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that while contraband detected during a lawful patdown search can be seized under the “plain feel” doctrine analogous to the “plain view” doctrine, the search that led to the cocaine’s discovery in this case exceeded the bounds of a lawful search for weapons and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the seizure of the cocaine was unconstitutional.