But moving the stereo equipment was an additional search, the appellate court reasoned, which lacked a warrant and was unrelated to the purpose the police were in Hicks' apartment to begin with.

In such cases, the search is by definition unrelated to the initial purpose the police are in the position to view the purported contraband or evidence of criminal activity.

A "distinction between searches based on their relative intrusiveness — and its subsequent adoption by a consensus of American courts — is entirely consistent with our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."

In other cases, she argued, the Court had allowed minimally invasive searches under the Fourth Amendment in the face of strong governmental interests.

In the face of the dilemma, Justice Powell worried that the bright-line rule making moving the equipment a "search" requiring probable cause "could deter conscientious police officers from lawfully obtaining evidence necessary to convict guilty persons."