Opinion ID: 2514735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Narcotics-Related Evidence from Bathroom

Text: In suppressing the narcotics-related evidence found in the bathroom, the trial court first determined that the provision of the warrant permitting a search for narcotics-related evidence was invalid. Then, the court held that there was no exception to the warrant requirement that would allow the evidence to come in. Upon review, we agree with the trial court that the warrant was invalid to the extent that it permitted a search for narcotics-related evidence. However, we reverse the trial court's determination that no exception to the warrant requirement applies. Rather, we hold that the evidence is admissible under the plain view exception. For a search warrant to be valid under the Constitution, it must contain a showing of probable cause supported by oath or affirmations particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. See U.S. Const. amend. IV. In this case, the trial court found that the affidavit supporting the warrant did not provide probable cause to believe that narcotics-related evidence would be found in or around Alameno's residence. The People do not contest this finding. We agree that the warrant lacked probable cause to search for narcotics-related evidence. The affidavit supporting the warrant suggested that Lucchesi believed that Alameno uses/consumes methamphetamine on a regular basis, and that she and others believed that he was using methamphetamine and stor[ing] methamphetamine within his residence. It did not indicate the basis for these beliefs. Suspicion of drug use alone does not give rise to probable cause. See People v. McCoy, 870 P.2d 1231, 1235 (Colo. 1994) (distinguishing mere suspicion from probable cause). Therefore, we agree that the warrant was invalid to the extent that it authorized a search for narcotics-related evidence. However, evidence that is not supported by a valid search warrant may still be admissible if it falls under one of several exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as the plain view exception. See People v. Pitts, 13 P.3d 1218, 1222 (Colo.2000) (noting that a search that is made without a valid warrant is presumed unreasonable unless justified by an established exception to the warrant requirement and describing the plain view exception). The plain view exception to the warrant requirement recognizes that police officers are not required to close their eyes to evidence that they see while conducting an otherwise proper search. Id. In order to fall within the plain view exception, plainly visible evidence must meet three requirements. First, the initial intrusion by the police must be legitimate. Id. Second, the police must have had a lawful right of access to the object seized. Id. Last, the police must have had a reasonable belief that the evidence seized was incriminating. Id. This final requirement is met if the incriminating nature was immediately apparent to the officer, which means that the officer had probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity without conducting a further search. Id. We hold that the People satisfied each requirement of the plain view exception in this case. Preliminarily, we note that the narcotics and narcotics equipment were plainly visible to the officers during the course of their search. The officers were authorized to search for electronic storage media, including media smaller than the size of a penny, and anything they came upon while searching for this evidence was in plain view. [4] The first requirement that the initial intrusion be legitimate was met in this case because the warrant authorized a search of the residence, and the bathroom was within that residence. The officers also satisfied the second prong of the plain view test, which requires the officers to have a lawful right of access to the object seized; anywhere that the officers could find narcotics or narcotics equipment they could also find storage media. Last, the officers had a reasonable belief that the evidence seized was incriminating because no further search would be required to associate the drugs and drug equipment with criminal activity. Because we hold that the plain view exception applies, we reverse the trial court's order suppressing the evidence.