Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 1987 U.S. Lexis 1056 (1987) Assignment

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 1987 U.S. Lexis 1056 (1987) - Assignment ExampleHe was informed that nonpareil of the equipment, a turntable, had been stolen in an armed robbery, so he seized it and got a search warrant to search the light of the apartment. It was then discovered that some of the other stereo equipment had also been stolen in an armed robbery, for which the respondent was later on indicted.The main issue in this case is whether the initial entering into the respondents apartment, and the subsequent record of the serial numbers on the stereo equipment constituted a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. This issue is a decision on whether the evidence had been seized illegally, and so should be suppressed. The issue is also, whether the blatant circumstances of the initial entry into the apartment allowed for the seizing of evidence related to a non-exigent matter the stolen stereo equipment.Originally, the state trial romance held that the evidence used in the case had been seized therefore, they granted the respondents motion to suppress the state evidence. This decision was also upheld by the hail of Appeals of Arizona, who conceded that the initial entry to the respondents living quarter was justified by the exigent circumstances of the case. However, the subsequent obtaining of the serial numbers from the stereo equipment qualified as an additional search not covered by the initial exigent circumstances. The Arizona Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the decision.Going by a statement in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) that a search not supported by a warrant must be strictly supported by the exigent circumstances following the search, the court decided to uphold the suppression of evidence. The Supreme Court reasoned that the law of nature violated the respondents Fourth Amendment rights when they embarked on a search not justified by the first facts. The court also reasoned that the polices actions were not justified by th e supernumerary view doctrine, since the officer who recorded the serial