In the case of Arizona v. Hicks, 1986, police officers entered an apartment in search of a shooter and found expensive stereo equipment that seemed out of place. Suspecting it was stolen, one officer recorded serial numbers and confirmed this suspicion. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this action constituted a "search" separate from their initial reason for entering the property (the shooting), which required its own probable cause under Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court held that moving objects to view their undersides or otherwise changing their position goes beyond mere observation into the realm of searching - even if those actions are small movements like lifting up a record player to see its serial number as occurred here. Therefore, since there was no probable cause to believe these items were stolen when they were searched (only reasonable suspicion), evidence obtained from this search could not be used in prosecuting Hicks for possession of stolen goods.

In the dissenting opinion for Arizona v. Hicks, Justice White argued that the majority's decision was too restrictive and ignored practical considerations of law enforcement. He disagreed with the majority's view that moving a stereo to read its serial number constituted a "search" under Fourth Amendment standards, arguing instead that this action should be considered minimally intrusive and reasonable given the circumstances. Furthermore, he contended that requiring probable cause in such situations would unnecessarily hinder police investigations into suspected criminal activity. In his view, officers who are already legally present in an area due to exigent circumstances should not be unduly restricted from taking actions necessary to confirm or dispel their suspicions of illegal activity.