Opinion ID: 1678274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence Obtained by Alleged Warrantless Search.

Text: Defendant's first motion to suppress evidence was based on the contention that information contained in a search warrant application presented on January 13, 1987, was obtained from a prior warrantless search of defendant's residence. On this aspect of the case, the investigating officers had concluded the shoeprint found at the crime scene resembled that made by a deck shoe. They later examined the sole patterns of different brands of deck shoes sold in the Omaha-Council Bluffs area. Several of the brands were found to have sole patterns similar to the print found near the victim's body. On January 8, 1987, the police went to defendant's residence with an arrest warrant to be executed in connection with a different crime. They were admitted to the residence by defendant's father and went to a bedroom where the defendant was sleeping. They awoke defendant and took him into custody. In that process, one police officer observed a pair of deck shoes on the floor of the bedroom. The officer moved nearer to the shoes in order to observe the brand label. He testified that he did not lean over because he was able to read the label inside the shoes while standing above the shoes and leaning against a dresser. The police subsequently obtained another pair of that brand of deck shoes to compare with the shoeprint in the sand. The degree of similarity provided one of the bases for formulating an application for a warrant to seize the shoes at defendant's residence. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained with that warrant on the ground that the information presented to the magistrate was a fruit of the officer's earlier observation of defendant's shoes. The motion to suppress asserted that the officer's visual observations constituted a warrantless search prohibited by the fourth amendment to the federal constitution. Defendant seeks to buttress this claim through reliance on Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S.Ct. 1149, 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987). We agree with the trial court that the Hicks decision does not support defendant's contentions that the officer's visual observations constituted a search. Indeed, language in that opinion suggests that the contrary is so. In Hicks, police officers had entered an apartment to investigate a report that a bullet had been fired through the floor of that residence into the apartment below. While in the apartment for this purpose, they observed some expensive stereo equipment not in keeping with the apartment's decor. Suspecting that this was stolen property, one of the officers moved the equipment away from a wall in order to observe and record serial numbers on the back. The Court characterized that activity as a search for purposes of the fourth amendment. In so doing, it stated: We agree that the mere recording of the serial numbers did not constitute a seizure.... In and of itself ... it did not meaningfully interfere with respondent's possessory interest in either the serial numbers or the equipment, and therefore did not amount to a seizure.... Officer Nelson's moving of the equipment, however, did constitute a search separate and apart from the search for [evidence of the discharge of a weapon]. Merely inspecting those parts of the turntable that came into view during the latter search would not have constituted an independent search, because it would have produced no additional invasion of respondent's privacy interest . . . . But taking action, unrelated to the objectives of the authorized intrusion, which exposed to view concealed portions of the apartment or its contents, did produce a new invasion of respondent's privacy unjustified by the exigent circumstance that validated the entry. 480 U.S. at 324-25, 107 S.Ct. at 1152, 94 L.Ed.2d at 353-54 (emphasis added). In the present case, the brand of defendant's shoes was ascertained by a visual inspection of objects which came into view during the officer's lawful activities. There was no movement of the shoes in order to expose any concealed portions. The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress based on a theory of warrantless search.