Case brief on arizona versus hicks

Practical Application Under Frye, the scientific community is essentially the gatekeeper determining evidence admissibility.

Assume for example that an officer reasonably suspects that two identical watches, both in plain view, have been stolen. The Court of Appeals viewed the obtaining of the serial numbers, however, as an additional search, unrelated to that exigency.

We are unwilling to send police and judges into a new thicket of Fourth Amendment law, to seek a creature of uncertain description that is neither a "plain view" inspection nor Page U. Thus, while courts require probable cause for more extensive examination, cursory inspections -- including picking up or moving objects for a better view -- require only a reasonable suspicion.

The online presentation will take place from 1: But turning over the other watch to read its serial number would be a search. I also can use standard cassettes. It is found that these actions are coincident with the increased risk of homicide incurred by the residents of Illinois over the 48 month post-event period for which data were available.

Prescott has utillized the services of k9's for investigative work, with Neeley acknowledging that there is only one k9 in Pierce County with availability limited due to the number of departments requesting such services.

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. Probable cause to believe the equipment was stolen was also necessary to support the search here, whether legal authority to move the equipment could be found only as the inevitable concomitant of the authority to seize it or also as a consequence of some independent power to search objects in plain view.

There is no doubt it would have done so if Officer Nelson had probable cause to believe that the equipment was stolen. Other states apply a modified Daubert or Frye Standard. It would be absurd to say that an object could lawfully be seized and taken from the premises, but could not be moved for closer examination.

A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable. It ruled unanimously on January 21,based on its reading of Windsor, that distinctions based on sexual orientation are subject to the "heightened scrutiny" standard of review and that "equal protection prohibits peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation".

Local News

Practically speaking, this means courts consider the issue once. Those circumstances include situations "[w]here the initial intrusion that brings the police within plain view of such [evidence] is supported. We have no power to decide this case.


I also have a medical transcription degree. The "plain view" doctrine does not render the search "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.

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

Arizona v. Hicks, U.S. (), held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. Arizona v. Hicks.

Case Brief on Arizona versus Hicks

Search. Table of Contents. Criminal Procedure keyed to Weinreb. Add to Library. Law Dictionary. CASE BRIEFS. Law Dictionary Access hundreds of law school topic videos, thousands of case briefs, exam prep materials, law professor takeaways and much more.

The most widely used law student study supplement ever! Case opinion for US Supreme Court ARIZONA v. HICKS. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

Facts of the case. A bullet was fired through the floor of Hicks's apartment which injured a man in the apartment below. To investigate the shooting, police officers entered Hicks's apartment and found three weapons along with a stocking mask.

On April 23,the Arizona State Legislature passed S.B. ; Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law. On July 6,the United States sought to stop the enforcement of S.B.

in federal district court before the law could take effect. United States v. Windsor, U.S. (), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Contact Us Case brief on arizona versus hicks
Rated 4/5 based on 22 review
Arizona v. Hicks - Case Brief