Opinion ID: 172874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Officers' discovery of the marijuana in the Plaintiffs' apartment provides additional support for the detentions and searches.

Text: As we noted in Harman I, [t]he plain view doctrine authorizes seizure of illegal or evidentiary items visible to a police officer whose access to the object has some prior Fourth Amendment justification and who has probable cause to suspect that the item is connected with criminal activity. 446 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771, 103 S.Ct. 3319, 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983)). Of course, if the police officers' presence in the home itself entailed a violation of the Fourth Amendment, no amount of probable cause to believe that an item in plain view constitutes incriminating evidence will justify its seizure. Id. (quoting Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 66 n. 10, 113 S.Ct. 538, 121 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992)). To prevent the plain view doctrine from eviscerating Fourth Amendment protections, we have imposed a three-prong test that the government must satisfy to justify its application. In particular, the government must establish that: (1) the officer was lawfully in a position from which to view the object seized in plain view; (2) the object's incriminating character was immediately apparenti.e.[,] the officer had probable cause to believe the object was contraband or evidence of a crime; and (3) the officer had a lawful right of access to the object itself. United States v. Soussi, 29 F.3d 565, 570 (10th Cir.1994). Here, there is no dispute as to the second requirementthe incriminating character of the marijuana was immediately apparent. Id. The first and third requirements turn on a question of timing, i.e., whether, when they observed the marijuana, the Officers were validly executing the warrant. The answer to that question turns on the Garrison analysis, i.e., whether, at some point before they observed the marijuana, the Officers knew or reasonably should have known that they had entered a home that was unconnected to the illegal activity described in the warrant, therefore triggering an immediate duty to retreat. Garrison, 480 U.S. at 87, 107 S.Ct. 1013. If so, the plain view doctrine is inapplicable. On that issue, there was some testimony that the SERT officers had secured the garage apartment before the pipe and marijuana were discovered. Aplts' App. vol. II, at 540 (SERT Officer Todd Leiendecker: [O]nce the lights were turned on I did a quick scan of the area ... the lights were turned on because the building was secured.). Similarly, SERT Officer Kirk Christensen recalled seeing marijuana and the pipe on the counter [w]hen [he] came back in[to the apartment]. Id. at 449. SERT Officer Daniel Fuhr testified that there was marijuana out in the open. Id. at 452. Evidently, the SERT officers secured the residence, and the only persons remaining in, or allowed to enter, the garage apartment were State Bureau of Investigations officers, including Sergeant Barnett and Agent Pollock. We conclude that when the SERT officers saw the marijuana in the Plaintiffs' apartment, and when Sergeant Barnett and Agent Pollock entered the apartment, they still reasonably believed that the Plaintiffs were connected to the illegal activity at the main residence. That suspicion remained until Sergeant Barnett had interviewed the occupants from the main house and from the garage apartment. Accordingly, the plain view doctrine allows the marijuana to be considered as part of the totality of evidence supporting the challenged detentions and searches. [5]