Opinion ID: 1733742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: validity of the automobile search

Text: During the course of the officers' search of the Koncir residence, they also searched an automobile belonging to petitioner Hutchens, which was parked in the driveway. Before the search commenced, the police apparently had no evidence linking Hutchens (Jeanne Koncir's father) to the reportedly illegal activity at the Koncir residence, and the warrant did not authorize the search of his car. However, the state attempts to justify the search of the vehicle on the basis of the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Recently, in State v. Banks, 363 So.2d 491, 493 (La.1978), this Court repeated the well-recognized prerequisites to the application to the plain view doctrine: (1) there must be a prior justification for an intrusion into a protected area, (2) in the course of which evidence is inadvertently discovered, and (3) where it is immediately apparent without close inspection that the items are evidence or contraband. Because the warrant is claimed as the prior justification for the intrusion onto the Koncir property, the automobile search is tainted by the invalidity of the warrant. Further, the search of the car was hardly inadvertent, since the officer who initiated it admitted at the hearing that he had all intentions of searching the car when [he went] in the yard, sooner or later . . . Finally, the money seized from the car seat was not immediately identifiable as contraband. Even if information obtained during the unlawful search of the residence provided probable cause for the search of Hutchens' car, the latter search nevertheless must be condemned as an exploitation of the primary illegality. See, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1971); State v. Thompson, 354 So.2d 513 (La.1978); State v. Jenkins, 340 So.2d 157 (La.1976). For the reasons assigned, we find the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.