480 U.S. 321 (1987)
One-Sentence Takeaway: Police officers’ movement of stereo equipment to view serial numbers during a lawful plain-view search of an apartment constituted an additional search requiring probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, as it was not supported by any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Summary: After a bullet was fired through Hick’s apartment, the police lawfully entered the apartment without a warrant to investigate (warrantless entry was lawful due to the exigent circumstances). While inside the apartment, an officer observed expensive stereo equipment that seemed out of place. The officer moved the equipment to access the serial number from which he determined that the equipment was stolen property.
The Supreme Court determined that the “plain view doctrine” was inapplicable and the search was unlawful. When the officer saw the stereo equipment in plain view, it only seemed out of place and he did not have probable cause to believe that the equipment was stolen. It was only after the officer moved the equipment to read the serial number did he determine that the equipment was stolen. The serial number was not in plain view and, therefore, the moving of the stereo equipment constituted a new search that was not supported by probable cause.