In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 16‐4057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY J. MINNEY,

Defendant‐Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:15‐cr‐00063 — Larry J. McKinney, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED MAY 16, 2017 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2017

____________________

Before BAUER, FLAUM, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

KANNE, Circuit Judge. Officers executed a search warrant

at Anthony Minney’s apartment. The search warrant listed

the items to be seized: a Panasonic television, a Sony televi‐

sion, a Nintendo Wii, an Xbox 360, and 10 Xbox video

games. While searching Minney’s bedroom, Detective Wil‐

liam Vasquez found ammunition in the bedside table. When

the officers questioned Minney, he admitted that he was on
2 No. 16‐4057

parole for dealing cocaine. Officers then arrested Minney for

being a felon in possession of ammunition.  

As the search for the electronic devices resumed, Detec‐

tive Vazquez found multiple guns in Minney’s bedroom: one

in the same drawer as the ammunition, one under the mat‐

tress, and two on a shelf in the closet. Officers recovered

most of the electronics, except for one television and the lap‐

top. Minney produced the laptop upon request, but officers

never found the second television.  

The government charged Minney with three counts of

being a felon in possession of a gun. When the district court

denied his motion to suppress the guns, Minney pled guilty

to one count in return for the government dismissing the

other two counts. Minney reserved his right to appeal the

district court’s suppression ruling. On appeal, Minney ar‐

gues that the guns should be suppressed because the officers

exceeded the scope of the search warrant. We disagree.  

When executing a search warrant that specifically lists

the items to be seized, officers are entitled to search any‐

where those items are likely to be discovered. United States v.

Mann, 592 F.3d 779, 782–83 (7th Cir. 2010). Officers may seize

the items named in the search warrant and any evidence that

falls under the plain‐view doctrine. Russell v. Harms, 397 F.3d

458, 465 (7th Cir. 2005). The plain‐view doctrine applies if the

officer is lawfully present, the item is in plain view, and the

item is immediately incriminating. Id.  

The plain‐view doctrine controls here. Detective Vazquez

was lawfully searching Minney’s bedroom under the search

warrant, and the electronic devices could have reasonably

been found in any of the places where Detective Vazquez
No. 16‐4057 3

found Minney’s guns; the guns were in plain view when De‐

tective Vazquez searched in those places; and the guns were

immediately incriminating because Minney admitted that he

was out on parole for dealing cocaine, a felony.  

Minney’s only argument to the contrary is that the offic‐

ers found the electronic devices listed in the search warrant

immediately and then continued searching for other incrim‐

inating evidence. Of course, it would be unreasonable under

the Fourth Amendment for officers to find everything listed

in a search warrant and then to keep searching. But that did

not happen here. The officers never found the second televi‐

sion. So while Minney’s legal argument is correct, it does not

apply here.  

For those reasons, the district court’s denial of Minney’s

motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.