Opinion ID: 772729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: honda prelude search

Text: 33 The Government argues that the evidence gathered from the search of the Honda Prelude should not have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree because Officer Podany's affidavit supported probable cause to search Reinholz and Chevalier's residence and the Honda Prelude was within the curtilage of the residence and in plain view. 5 Reinholz and Chevalier argue that the evidence gathered from the search of the Honda Prelude was properly suppressed because the search warrant for the residence was invalid and the Honda Prelude search was fruit of the poisonous tree. 34 The search of the Honda Prelude did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was in the plain view of the police officers executing a valid search warrant for the house. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738, 739 n.4 (1983) (determining plain view provides grounds for seizure of an item when an officer's access to the object has some prior justification under the Fourth Amendment). The plain view doctrine permits police to seize an item not specified in a search warrant if the police are lawfully in a position to observe the item and its incriminating character is immediately apparent. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-38 (1990). When the police executed the valid search warrant on Reinholz and Chevalier's residence the Honda Prelude was sitting in the driveway and drug paraphernalia was immediately apparent through the car's windows. Thus, the search of the Honda Prelude did not violate the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, the district court erred when it granted Reinholz's and Chevalier's motions to suppress the evidence obtained by the Government as a result of the search of the Honda Prelude.