You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State v. Hicks

Citations: 707 P.2d 331; 146 Ariz. 533; 1985 Ariz. App. LEXIS 635Docket: 1 CA-CR 8573

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; June 20, 1985; Arizona; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, police officers responded to a shooting incident at an apartment complex, where they entered a nearby apartment without a warrant under exigent circumstances. Although the initial entry was deemed legal due to the immediate threat, the officers' subsequent action of recording serial numbers of stereo components was found to be beyond the scope of the exigency and constituted an unlawful search. The state of Arizona appealed the suppression of this evidence, contending that the later acquisition of a search warrant should render the evidence admissible under the 'good-faith' exception. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing the inapplicability of the cited statute and the precedent established in United States v. Leon, which does not permit the validation of evidence obtained through unconstitutional means by later obtaining a warrant. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's suppression order, with Judges Hathaway and Lacagnina concurring, underscoring that unconstitutional actions by law enforcement cannot be remedied by subsequent legal procedures.

Legal Issues Addressed

Exigent Circumstances and Warrantless Entry

Application: The court acknowledged that the initial warrantless entry by police officers into the apartment was justified due to the exigent circumstances presented by the shooting incident.

Reasoning: The state of Arizona appealed the suppression of the evidence, acknowledging that the initial warrantless entry was legal due to the immediate threat posed by the shooting.

Good-Faith Exception and Subsequent Warrants

Application: The court rejected the state's argument that the evidence should be admissible under the 'good-faith' exception, as the precedent does not allow for validation of unlawful searches through subsequent warrants.

Reasoning: The court rejected this argument, stating that the statute cited did not apply, and that the precedent set in United States v. Leon does not allow for the validation of unlawful searches through subsequent warrants.

Scope of Exigent Circumstances

Application: The court determined that while exigent circumstances justified entry, the subsequent recording of serial numbers was not justified and constituted an unlawful search.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that while exigent circumstances justified the entry, the subsequent action of recording serial numbers was beyond the scope of that exigency and constituted an unlawful search.

Suppression of Evidence

Application: The court affirmed the suppression of evidence obtained from the unlawful search, maintaining that unconstitutional actions cannot be remedied by later obtaining a warrant.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court affirmed the suppression order, maintaining that prior unconstitutional actions by law enforcement cannot be remedied by later obtaining a warrant.