Opinion ID: 407585
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Immediately Apparent Requirement

Text: 50 The case law does not clearly establish the extent to which police may go in examining an item to determine whether it is incriminating. While it is clear that under Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969) (Stewart, J., concurring), police cannot remove film from containers and view it on a projector, Justice Stewart's opinion in Stanley v. Georgia has not been interpreted as prohibiting all examination of an article. It is generally assumed that there is nothing improper in merely picking up an article for the purpose of noting identifying characteristics found on the surface; a casual inspection is permitted, but a close inspection is not. 3 United States v. Roberts, 619 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1980). The line between a permissible examination and an overly intrusive one is thin and poorly defined. In United States v. Roberts, police officers obtained a warrant to search for stolen property and while on the premises observed tables set up with football score sheets, phones and calculators. The police inspected the football scoresheets by a mere glance. Once alerted to the existence of a bookmaking operation, they had probable cause to believe the items on the table were evidence of crime and could therefore seize them. 619 F.2d at 381. 51 Cases involving address books go somewhat further than Roberts, and generally hold, at least in conspiracy cases, that police may page through the book before seizing it. In United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 559 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 1345, 63 L.Ed.2d 781 (1980), the fifth circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress address books, because the police were investigating a conspiracy, and the investigator recognized that the address books might be of significance before he leafed through them. 603 F.2d at 559; see also United States v. Hillyard, 677 F.2d 1336, 1342 (9th Cir. 1982); United States v. Phillips, 593 F.2d 553 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 947, 99 S.Ct. 2169, 60 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1979). 52 Similarly, in United States v. Crouch, 648 F.2d 932 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 952, 102 S.Ct. 491, 70 L.Ed.2d 259 (1981), a case upon which the government relies, the Fourth Circuit upheld a ruling admitting in evidence letters containing a formula for manufacturing drugs which were seized during a search authorized by a warrant for paraphernalia used in drug manufacture. The court attached no significance to the fact that a cursory reading of the letters was necessary to establish their incriminating nature. Even though there was nothing incriminating about the envelopes in which the letters were discovered, the court noted that the agents acted within the scope of the search warrant in removing the letters from those envelopes to search for the chemicals and paraphernalia named in the warrant. Id. at 933. 4 53 In other cases, courts have rejected a plain view justification for seizure of items when the investigator had to conduct a more searching inspection of the item. In United States v. Scios, 590 F.2d 956, 963 n.15 (D.C.Cir.1978) (en banc), the court held that the agent unlawfully riffled through defendant's file folders, located on a countertop in wire stands. The labels on the folders were not plainly visible; the agent had to bend over, thumb through the files and finger them so that their labels could be read. The agent was lawfully on the premises pursuant to an arrest warrant, and was looking for nothing in particular when he focused on the file folders. 5 Id. at 958; see also United States v. Robinson, 535 F.2d 881, 885-86 (5th Cir. 1976) (not plain view when officer had to open brown paper bag to inspect envelopes inside). Most cases also hold that an investigator cannot write down an item's identifying characteristics, such as a serial number, and check it later. United States v. Clark, 531 F.2d 928 (8th Cir. 1976) (officers authorized to search for drugs could not seize pistol, check serial number and prosecute defendant for firearms violation); United States v. Gray, 484 F.2d 352 (6th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1158, 94 S.Ct. 916, 39 L.Ed.2d 110 (1974) (where warrant authorized search for illegally stored beer, officers could not seize rifle and later check serial number). But cf. United States v. Schire, 586 F.2d at 18-19 (looking at serial number permissible; immediately apparent requirement means apparent without information other than that which officers properly possessed before the search was over). In a more extreme case, United States v. Dichiarinte, 445 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1971), a defendant consented to a search of his house for narcotics. During the search, the agents went far beyond the scope of the defendant's consent by opening and reading through his personal papers to determine whether they gave any hint that defendant was engaged in criminal activity. 54 This case falls between cases such as United States v. Dichiarinte and United States v. Roberts, supra. Here, the evidence was not fully exposed to view, as in Roberts, but Investigator Hepburn was authorized to be in the drawer at the time when he found the papers. Thus, the issue is whether the contents of the phone list and other papers were immediately apparent in light of the fact that Hepburn had to examine the papers before coming to the conclusion that they were incriminating. The search warrant in this case authorized Hepburn to look for a gun and a jogging suit and, unlike the officers in United States v. Crouch and United States v. Diecidue, Hepburn was not acting within the scope of the search warrant in examining the papers. There is no indication in the record, however, that the papers were in an envelope, bag, folded up or otherwise concealed. Hepburn did not have to take information back to headquarters, analyze it, or conduct any further search of the premises; he merely had to look at the papers to be able fully to view their contents. 6 See United States v. Schire, 586 F.2d 15 (7th Cir. 1978). In light of the minimal and casual nature of the inspection necessary to ascertain the contents of the papers, the immediately apparent requirement, in my view, poses no obstacle to application of the plain view doctrine.