Opinion ID: 2972630
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Thomas’s Motion to Suppress

Text: We affirm the district court’s denial of Thomas’s motion to suppress. The factual findings of the district court are reviewed for clear error in the light most favorable to the government; legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. United States v. Carter, 378 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (citations omitted). No. 04-5871 United States v. Thomas Page 4 Here, the district court denied Thomas’s motion to suppress under the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement after a hearing at which the officers and Thomas testified. Under the “plain view” exception, a Government agent may seize an object without first obtaining a warrant if the object is: “(1) in plain view; (2) of a character that is immediately incriminating; (3) viewed by an officer lawfully located in a place from where the object can be seen; and (4) seized by an officer who has a lawful right of access to the object itself.” Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan, 338 F.3d 535, 549 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Roark, 36 F.3d 14, 18 (6th Cir.1994)). Although the witnesses gave different accounts, the district court credited the officer’s testimony. The court found that the crack cocaine was in plain view on Thomas’s lap as he sat in his car with the door open and that Officer Oliver was at a lawful vantage point and had lawful access to the object as he was walking up the driveway to knock on the door of the residence. Viewed in a light most favorable to the government, these factual findings are not clearly erroneous. The district court also found that the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent to the officer. Thomas contends this finding cannot be supported as a matter of law in light of U.S. v. McLevain, 310 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2002). In McLevain, police were present in a home while searching for an escaped fugitive. While searching the home, officers found a twist tie, a cut cigarette filter, a spoon with residue, and a prescription bottle filled with a clear liquid. Id. at 437-38. This court held that there was nothing “intrinsically incriminating” about the items and accordingly, the officers should have procured a warrant. Id. at 442-43. No. 04-5871 United States v. Thomas Page 5 Thomas contends that McLevain should guide our analysis in this case. We disagree. The incriminating nature of a plastic baggie containing a brownish white rock-like substance is much more apparent than the incriminating nature of a twist tie and a cigarette filter. McLevain noted that probable cause “does not require that the officers know that evidence is contraband. Instead, ‘probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime.’” Id. at 441 (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983) (citation omitted)). We find that this case is more similar to United States v. Turner, No. 94-5080, 1995 WL 63156 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 1995). In Turner, a police officer’s warrantless seizure of cocaine was upheld when the officer observed the defendant show a plastic bag containing white powder to the driver of a parked car in a public lot. When the officer approached, the defendant stuffed the bag into his shorts. The court upheld the seizure of the object under the plain view exception, as the officer could “justifiably rely on his training and experience in asserting whether criminal activity is occurring.” Id. at  (citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 742-43). Here, the district court found that Officer Oliver’s experience and the nature of the object were sufficient to give Officer Oliver probable cause to believe that the brownish white rock-like substance in plain view was crack cocaine and justified its seizure. We agree. Thomas’s argument that he was seized without probable cause when the two officers approached his car is also without merit. Thomas argues that the approach of Officers Oliver and Adams constituted an arrest because the police show of force and authority left Thomas No. 04-5871 United States v. Thomas Page 6 under the reasonable impression that he was not free to leave. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 625-27 (1991). However, as Officer Oliver noted in his testimony, the events happened very quickly. As Officer Oliver lawfully approached Thomas, he observed the plastic bag with a rock-like substance on Thomas’s lap, Thomas stuffed the bag into his pants, and then attempted to flee. There was no show of authority nor submission to a show of authority sufficient to constitute a seizure between the approach of Officer Oliver and Officer Adams, the observation of the plastic bag, and Thomas’s reaction. Thomas’s reaction, coupled with Officer Oliver’s observation of a rock-like substance, gave Officer Oliver probable cause to seize the contraband and arrest Thomas. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.