Why cops, in this case, didn&#39;t simply seize the stereo?
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Hicks" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Hicks</a></p>

<p>I look at this case.</p>

<p>A cop saw expensive stereo. The cop check the serial number and found that the stereo was stolen.</p>

<p>The cop move the stereo a bit and get the serial number. The evidence is thrown out of court.</p>

<p>However, I've heard cops can seize cash on even less suspicion.</p>

<p>Basically many cops see cash, think it's from drug dealing, and seize it.</p>

<p>The mere act of bringing cash is punishable by civil forfeiture without trial.</p>

<p>By that <strong>logic</strong>, the cop that <strong>suspect</strong> the stereo is from a crime, should also be able to seize the stereo.</p>

<p>Once the stereo is seized, it's easy to just look at the back and see the serial number.</p>

<p>Another way to look at this:</p>

<p>Why didn't the cop just use civil forfeiture laws to seize the stereo and then, after the stereo is on cops' hand, the cop can just see the serial number?</p>

<p>Did the cop have a right to seize the stereo under civil forfeiture law?</p>

<p>Can the cop see the stereo serial number after seizing the stereo?</p>

<p>If the answer two both question is yes, then why bother getting a warrant to look behind?</p>

<p>Also, what should have the cop done on that circumstances to capture the burglar? Nothing?</p>

<p>In the Hicks case, police entered the premise, reasonably, pursuant a bullet having been fired from Hicks' apartment into a person in the apartment below. There were expensive stereo components in plain sight, which raised a reasonable suspicion. But that reasonable suspicion did not justify a further search, which police nevertheless conducted: they turned the stereo to get the serial numbers. Having phoned in the numbers and learning that the items were stolen, they then had probable cause for a seizure. That cause was, however, obtained via an illegal search.</p>

<p>Suppose that the serial numbers had been visible from the front: then because they would have been in plain view and since the police were there for a reasonable search related to the shooting, then could have legally seized the stereo, since no additional search was required.</p>

<p>There is no distinction between search and seizure w.r.t. 4th Amendment protection ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"). Police could not confiscate the stereo without probable cause, nor could they confiscate cash, or any other thing, again, unless they had probable cause. And they could not search for evidence that would give them probable cause to take stuff.</p>

<p>As SCOTUS said, regarding searches versus seizures, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>We have not elsewhere drawn a categorical distinction between the two
  insofar as concerns the degree of justification needed to establish
  the reasonableness of police action, and we see no reason for a
  distinction in the particular circumstances before us here.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The premise of your question as it now stands is incorrect.  The police <em>did</em> seize the stereo.  The fourth sentence in the <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/480/321.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">opinion</a> reads:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Upon learning that the turntable had been taken in an armed robbery, he seized it immediately.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The courts did not order that the stereo be returned to Hicks nor to anyone else in the apartment, they simply found that the stereo could not be used as evidence against Hicks in prosecuting him for the robbery.</p>

united-states search-and-seizure