Opinion ID: 777541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Suppression of the Weapons

Text: 57 Perrotta argues that the seizure of his weapons violated the Fourth Amendment because the weapons were not described in the search warrant. His argument ignores the plain view doctrine, which permits the seizure of items located in plain view if (1) the seizing officer has a prior justification for being in a position to see the item in plain view and (2) the evidentiary value of the item is immediately apparent. United States v. Owens, 167 F.3d 739, 746 (1st Cir.1999). Evidentiary value is immediately apparent if there are enough facts for a reasonable person to believe that the items in plain view may be contraband or evidence of a crime. United States v. Hamie, 165 F.3d 80, 83 (1st Cir.1999). 58 Perrotta fails to explain why the plain view exception is inapplicable to this case. The search was conducted pursuant to an investigation of a loansharking conspiracy that used violence to enforce repayment obligations. The officers had reason to believe that the weapons could have evidentiary value in connection with their investigation, as Perrotta could have used the weapons to collect debts or to protect his cash. It makes no difference that the weapons were not used to commit the crimes for which Perrotta was convicted; the Fourth Amendment requires simply that the investigators, at the time of the seizure, had reasonable grounds to believe that the items may [have been] contraband or evidence of a crime. 11 Id.