PLAIN VIEW – New York Appellate Digest

Closed Box Properly Seized and Searched Under the Plain View Doctrine

CurlyHost — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 04:00:00 +0000

The Second Department determined a police officer properly seized evidence under the plain view doctrine. The box that was seized and opened had the words “Smith & Wesson” on it:

Here, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that a police officer was lawfully present in the apartment building where the defendant resided … . The officer discovered the challenged physical evidence, a handgun and ammunition, in a gun box located in a common storage area accessible to anyone in the building. The box was not locked, and there was no indication that the defendant’s name or other personal identification, such as his apartment number, was on the box which would lead one who observed it to understand that it belonged to the defendant or a person living in his apartment … . The box was clearly marked “Smith and Wesson.” Under these circumstances, the distinctive label on the outside of the box “proclaimed [its] contents” and, as such, made it immediately apparent to the officer that the box contained a firearm …, thus authorizing the officer to seize the box without a warrant … . Furthermore, since the gun box, “by its very nature, could not support any reasonable expectation of privacy because its content could be inferred from its outward appearance” … , the officer lawfully opened the box, and discovered the handgun and ammunition inside. People v John, 2014 NY Slip Op 05653, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

“Plain View” Doctrine Does Not Require Certainty Seized Item Is Contraband

Bruce Freeman — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:37:59 +0000

In affirming the denial of a suppression motion, the First Department determined that the chain of events observed by the arresting officer before the stop of defendant’s vehicle led to the proper application of the “plain view” doctrine for the seizure of contraband. Defendant was seen going into a store (which was a frequent target of thieves) with a large empty bag and coming out of the store with the bag visibly heavier and fuller. After a vehicle stop (the stop was not contested or discussed in the decision), the defendant gave answers to questions that contradicted what the officer had observed and the officer saw a large amount of over-the-counter medications in the bag. In finding the seizure of the bag justified under the “plain view” doctrine, the Court said: “The plain view doctrine does not require certainty or near certainty as to the incriminating nature of the items. Instead, it ‘merely requires that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief …that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A practical, nontechnical probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required’ …”. People v Taylor, 9439, 6265/10, 1st Dept. 3-7-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESS, SEARCH