Opinion ID: 1452969
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: PART II.B.2.b: INCRIMINATING NATURE IMMEDIATELY APPARENT ANALYSIS

Text: I agree that all of the documentary items seized at the Garcia residence were subject to suppression, because they did not fall within the purview of the plain-view doctrine. However, I am concerned with language in the majority opinion suggesting that the documents found in the footlocker containing mathematical calculations would have been admissible had the officer not testified that he examined them. Maj. Op. at 511. Such a conclusion stands in conflict with our holding that a document is not within the plain view exception if it must be read in order for its incriminating nature to be determined. Maj. Op. at 511. In my view, one could not instantaneously discern[ ] the incriminating nature of mathematical calculations written on a piece of paper. Maj. Op. at 511. One would still need to read the document in order to know that there were numbers on the paper and that those numbers expressed mathematical thoughts. Next the reader would need to think about what those numbers might represent. Only then would the reader arrive at the conclusion that the document is of an incriminating nature. Thus, like the documents conveying information through letters, the incriminating nature of documents conveying information through numbers is not immediately apparent. In my opinion, the fact that Officer Fowler acknowledged that he examined these documents is not outcome determinative, but rather, expresses what anyone would have to do in order to ascertain the incriminating nature of such documents.