Opinion ID: 424137
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Seizure by Fire Fighters and Police Pursuant to Alleged Policy of Securing Valuables

Text: 67 Appellant Parr challenges the seizure of the sixteen counterfeit bills from his home on the night of the fire as violative of the Fourth Amendment. He does not challenge the authority of fire officials to enter his home to extinguish the fire nor to remain for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of the fire after it was extinguished. See Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978). Nor does appellant refute the fact that fire officials may seize evidence of arson that is in plain view when they are performing one of these two concededly legitimate purposes. Id. 98 S.Ct. at 1950. What appellant does assert is that the Fourth Amendment does not condone investing in fire officials the unbridled discretion randomly to choose which parts of a burned dwelling should be searched pursuant to a general practice of salvaging valuables, ostensibly for the protection of the owner of the burned house. Resolution of this claim requires careful balancing of interests and sensitive reconciliation of conflicting legal principles. We hold that, at least where the policy is not executed pursuant to standardized procedures that narrowly channel the discretion of fire officials to determine the scope and subject of the search of a burned dwelling, 16 a policy of seeking out and salvaging valuables without an administrative warrant violates the dictates of the Fourth Amendment. 68 Preliminarily, and contrary to the government's argument, the salvage procedure here in issue clearly qualifies as a search within the Fourth Amendment. [T]he 'basic purpose of [the Fourth] Amendment ... is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials.' The officials may be health, fire, or building inspectors. Their purpose may be to locate and abate suspected public nuisance, or simply to perform a routine periodic inspection.... These deviations from the typical police search are thus clearly within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978), quoting Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1730, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). 69 In Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978), the Supreme Court evaluated the applicability of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement to the duties of fire officials. There the Court carefully reasoned: 70 [T]here is no diminution in a person's reasonable expectation of privacy nor in the protection of the Fourth Amendment simply because the official conducting the search wears the uniform of a firefighter rather than a policeman, or because his purpose is to ascertain the cause of a fire rather than to look for evidence of a crime, or because the fire might have been started deliberately. Searches for administrative purposes, like searches for evidence of crime, are encompassed by the Fourth Amendment.... The showing of probable cause necessary to secure a warrant may vary with the object and intrusiveness of the search, but the necessity for the warrant persists. 71 Id. 98 S.Ct. at 1948 (footnote omitted). The Court specifically held: 72 In short, the warrant requirement provides significant protection for fire victims in this context, just as it does for property owners faced with routine building inspections. As a general matter, then, official entries to investigate the cause of a fire must adhere to the warrant procedures of the Fourth Amendment.... [A warrantless entry by fire fighters] is illegal unless it falls within one of the certain carefully defined classes of cases for which warrants are not mandatory. 73 Id. 98 S.Ct. at 1949, quoting Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1730, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). 74 The Court proceeded to discuss the only arguably applicable exception to the warrant requirement: exigent circumstances where there is a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant. Id. 98 S.Ct. at 1949-50, citing Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) and Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. at 539, 87 S.Ct. at 1736 and cases cited therein. The Court reasoned that [a] burning building clearly presents an exigency of sufficient proportions to render a warrantless entry 'reasonable.' Indeed, it would defy reason to suppose that firemen must secure a warrant or consent before entering a burning structure to put out the blaze. Id. 98 S.Ct. at 1950. 75 The Court also stated that [f]ire officials are charged not only with extinguishing fires but with finding their causes. Id. 76 Because determining the cause of a fire is one of the core functions of fire fighters, the Court concluded that [o]nce in a building for this purpose, fire fighters may seize evidence of arson that is in plain view. Id., citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465-66, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037-38, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, and also because ascertaining the cause of the fire is a duty with which fire officials consistently are charged, officials need no warrant to remain in a building for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of a blaze after it has been extinguished. Id. (emphasis supplied) (footnote omitted). 77 The government here argues that the search for valuables after the fire has been extinguished also should fall within the same exigent circumstances that justified initial entry into Parr's home. [T]he burden of proof [belongs] to the state to establish that an exception to the search warrant requirement was applicable in the subject case.... United States v. Bachner, 706 F.2d 1121 at 1126 (11th Cir.1983). 78 The logic of the Court's opinion in Michigan v. Tyler leads us to conclude that where fire fighters are pursuing a purpose less clearly defined as one of the core duties with which they are charged, searches of a burned dwelling for that purpose, after the fire has been extinguished, do not fall within the exigent circumstances created by the fire and thus are unlawful in the absence of a warrant. This case, in which the fire had been extinguished and the search for and seizure of valuables was to protect those items from looters, is distinguishable from removal of valuables from a home to protect them from destruction by a raging fire. There the exigency created by the fire would make warrantless removal of goods totally reasonable. Here no such exigency existed. 79 Arguments can be made, of course, that the need to secure valuables against looters is an exigency which, along with extinguishing the blaze and ascertaining the cause of the fire, should be excepted from the warrant requirement. 80 First, a considerable segment of the population probably would consent to searches to secure valuables. 17 As the Court in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. at 536, 87 S.Ct. at 1735, stated, however, this argument even if true, is irrelevant to the question whether the [salvage] inspection is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 81 Second, the protection of valuable property of the fire victim from vandals and looters certainly is a legitimate governmental interest. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3097, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); id. 96 S.Ct. at 3102 (Powell, J., concurring); id. at 3108 (Marshall, Brennan & Stewart, JJ., dissenting). 82 The legitimacy of this interest, however, does not undercut the necessity for a warrant to safeguard the substantial privacy interests implicated by any entry into a person's home by a governmental official. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585-90, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1379-82, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-94, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2414, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. at 507-10, 98 S.Ct. at 1948-50. 18 83 In Michigan v. Tyler, the Court imposed the warrant requirement on all searches undertaken to investigate the cause of the fire, excepting only those where the officials remain in a building for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of a blaze after it is extinguished. Id. 98 S.Ct. at 1950 (footnote omitted). These limited searches were included within the scope of the exigency justifying the original warrantless entry to extinguish the fire due to two interests: preventing fires and discovering evidence of criminal activity related to the cause of the fire. Id. at 1950. Both are in large part public interests, not the purely private interests of the owner or occupant of the home. Searches to secure valuables from looters and vandals, while peripherally serving a public interest in prevention of crime, are undertaken almost exclusively to protect the interests of the fire victim. The Fourth Amendment, however, seeks to protect a different interest of that same fire victim. [E]ven the most law-abiding citizen has a very tangible interest in limiting the circumstances under which the sanctity of his home may be broken by official authority, for the possibility of criminal entry under the guise of official sanction is a serious threat to personal and family security. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. at 530-31, 87 S.Ct. at 1732. At the very core [of the Fourth Amendment] stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 683, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). 84 Hence, in deciding whether to extend the exigent circumstances exception of the warrant requirement to the facts of this case, we are forced to choose between affording greater protection to the fire victim's privacy rights, by holding that searches to secure valuables in the home after the fire has been extinguished are outside the scope of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, or to the property rights of that same victim, by according fire fighters license to search for valuable property after a fire without a search warrant. Given the high value placed on the interests underlying the protections of the Fourth Amendment as applied to the sanctity of the home, we choose the former. 19 85 In Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), the Supreme Court made clear that where an entry into a home is justified by emergency circumstances a warrant must be obtained for any search exceeding the scope of the exigency, and [a] warrantless search must be 'strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation ....'  Id. 98 S.Ct. at 2413, quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25-26, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882-83, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Similarly, in United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312, 1317 n. 9 (5th Cir.1977), this court specifically stated that an officer entering a home pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception may not search the premises beyond the scope justified by the exigency without obtaining a warrant. We reaffirm that ruling here, holding that the search for valuables falls outside the immediate exigency created by the fire and must be supported by a warrant. See also United States v. Lyons, 706 F.2d 321 (D.C.Cir.1983). 86 The search of Parr's home for valuables also falls outside the scope of the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement. Illinois v. Lafayette, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). See also United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 10 n. 5, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2483 n. 5, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). 87 First, the procedure at issue here is not an inventory at all, but selective confiscation of arbitrarily selected goods. 88 More important, even if an inventory in this context were plausible, the inventory search exception has never been applied to searches of someone's home. Cf. United States v. Laing, 708 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Bosby, 675 F.2d 1174 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Prescott, 599 F.2d 103 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Edwards, 577 F.2d 883 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 968, 99 S.Ct. 458, 58 L.Ed.2d 427 (1978). On the contrary the Supreme Court consistently has afforded greater protection from searches of homes and other private buildings than from searches of automobiles, or arrested persons and their personal effects, by applying the warrant requirement in full force to the former, be it for searches in the criminal or non-criminal context. Compare Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1382, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant); Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978); G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 354, 97 S.Ct. 619, 629, 50 L.Ed.2d 530 (1977) (distinguishing warrantless searches of some regulated businesses from those in private dwellings or property); United States v. District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2134, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972) (physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) with Illinois v. Lafayette, supra, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65; South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 561, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 3084, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976) (upholding warrantless, routine checkpoint stops of automobiles where we deal neither with searches nor with the sanctity of private dwellings, ordinarily afforded the most stringent Fourth Amendment protection) (emphasis supplied). As noted above, the Court in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. at 590, 100 S.Ct. at 1382, made clear that only exigent circumstances will justify a warrantless intrusion into a home. An inventory search exception will not be used by this court as a bootstrap to undermine the Fourth Amendment protections afforded the sanctity of the home. 89 A review of the principles expressed in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976), supports our conclusion. There the Supreme Court explored the legality of warrantless, routine, inventory searches of impounded automobiles, undertaken in part to protect the property of the car owner or most recent occupant. See also Illinois v. Lafayette, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983) (extending inventory search exception to warrant requirement to searches of arrestee and his personal effects in a police station). 90 In concluding that such searches did satisfy the requirement of the Fourth Amendment the Court relied primarily on two factors. These factors are so noticeably absent in the case of searches of burned dwellings to secure valuables that we are convinced the logic of Opperman compels that here a contrary result be reached. See United States v. Lyons, 706 F.2d 321 (D.C.Cir.1983) (distinguishing Opperman; warrant must be obtained for search for evidence in hotel room, scene of arrest, even though initial entry was justified by consent to undercover police to engage in drug transaction). 91 The first factor relied upon by the Opperman Court was the traditionally drawn [ ] distinction between automobiles and homes or offices in relation to the Fourth Amendment. Opperman, 96 S.Ct. at 3096. The Court noted that warrantless examinations of automobiles have been upheld in circumstances in which a search of a home or office would not, id., and emphasized the reasons for the distinction: the inherent mobility of automobiles and the diminished expectation of privacy in automobiles as compared to homes or other buildings. Id. at 3096-97. Even though an inventory search of an arrestee's personal effects in a police station has been found to implicate a privacy interest insufficiently greater than that which exists in an automobile to distinguish it from an Opperman inventory search, given the greatly enhanced privacy interest in a home, this distinction supports a finding that satisfaction of the standards of Opperman would not suffice to justify a warrantless search of a home, as is in issue in this case. See text supra at 813 - 814; United States v. Lyons, supra 706 F.2d at 325. Cf. Illinois v. Lafayette, supra (inventory search exception applicable to search of arrestee and his personal effects in a police station); Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 9 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968). 92 The second factor relied upon by the Opperman Court was the existence of routine, uniform, standard procedures by which the inventory searches are undertaken by police. Opperman, 96 S.Ct. at 3097, 3098-99; id. at 3104 (Powell, J., concurring). 20 See also Illinois v. Lafayette, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983) (emphasizing inventory search exception applicable where standardized and routine procedure used in police station). 93 In the instant case, not only was the non-criminal inventory-type search for salvageable valuables undertaken within an individual's home rather than a car, but no standardized procedures were used. While the existence of the general policy of the Tampa Fire Department of searching for valuables is not contested, Record at 71, 83-84, absolute discretion is invested in the individual fire fighter as to the scope and focus of the search. Record at 71, 80-81. 94 Fire Inspector Burke, Stone's superior at the scene of the Parr fire and the individual to whom Stone turned over the money, testified that while, for his own personal information, he inventories the valuable property gathered, there is no standardized inventory procedure followed. Record at 84. He stated that he thought the police department categorized the items if and when the valuables were turned over to them. Record at 84. No direct evidence was presented on this point. 95 More importantly, even assuming that under this salvage policy the confiscated valuables are turned over to the police department for safekeeping if the owner does not return prior to the fire department vacating the premises, and assuming that the police department does properly inventory the items held, it is undisputed that here the decision as to the scope of the search and the procedures to be followed in the search were committed totally to the unguided discretion of the individual fire fighter. The individual fire fighter decided whether or not to look through closets, drawers, desks, personal papers, toiletries, bathrooms, or bedrooms, or any other portion of the house, no matter how remote from the source of the fire, without any set standards to guide his decision. The practical effect of this system [was] to leave the occupant [or owner] subject to the discretion of the official in the field. This is precisely the discretion to invade private property which we have consistently circumscribed by a requirement that a disinterested party warrant the need to search. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. at 532-33, 87 S.Ct. at 1733. 96 We therefore hold that searches for and seizures of valuables in a burned dwelling neither fall within the inventory search exception nor the same exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement that justifies entry to extinguish and ascertain the cause of a fire. Prior to undertaking such searches, absent consent or the presence of other exceptions to the warrant requirement, warrants should be obtained pursuant to the procedures governing administrative searches. 21 See Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. at 511, 98 S.Ct. at 1951; Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 320-21, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 1824-25, 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. at 534-39, 87 S.Ct. at 1733-36. See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967). 97 We also note that the facts in the instant case do not support application of the plain view doctrine. A review of the record reveals that the evidence here in question was not in plain view to the fire fighter in the scope of his investigation of the cause of the fire or in his efforts to extinguish the fire, but was in a place intruded upon only pursuant to his search for valuables. 22 The evidence was not in plain view during the course of [his] legitimate emergency activities. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). 98 In short, based on the principles underlying the Supreme Court's decisions in Michigan v. Tyler, supra, Payton v. New York, supra, and South Dakota v. Opperman, supra, and our judgment in United States v. Brand, supra, we conclude that the warrantless search of Parr's house ostensibly to secure valuables, undertaken pursuant to no routine, standardized procedures, without exigent circumstances, and yielding evidence not in plain view to the fire fighters, did not satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. 99 The principles set forth above dictate that the conviction of Appellant Parr under Count II of the indictment be reversed, as the sixteen bills seized after the fire constitute the sole basis for that indictment. Because, however, the unlawful seizure of the sixteen counterfeit notes did not taint the convictions on Count I and III and the sixteen bills were not introduced as evidence to support those convictions, this holding leaves those convictions unaffected.