Opinion ID: 577111
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of Developed Fishing Photographs

Text: 88 Jakobetz next challenges the government's introduction of two photographs taken by the victim's father during a fishing trip. These photographs were developed from a roll of film that had been seized in a search of Jakobetz's residence. 89 On July 17, 1989, an FBI agent secured a warrant to search Jakobetz's home for a number of items, including a 35 mm Fuji camera belonging to the victim's father. In addition to the items in the warrant, the agents seized other items, including nine rolls of undeveloped film. Jakobetz moved pretrial to suppress the results of the search, including those items not specified in the warrant. 90 Before the district court ruled on this defense motion, another FBI agent obtained a warrant from Judge Billings in November 1989 to develop the seized rolls of film. In February 1990, however, Judge Billings partially granted Jakobetz's suppression motion with regard to those items seized but not particularized in the search warrant. The court referred to some of the suppressed items, but made no mention of the film. 91 At trial, Jakobetz's counsel objected to the pictures' admission solely on the basis that the introduction of the evidence on rebuttal was outside the scope of the defendant's case. On appeal, Jakobetz contends, for the first time, that the court below improperly admitted the photographs in violation of its own suppression order. 92 In opposition, the government argues that Jakobetz failed to preserve at trial any objection based on the suppression motion at trial and is therefore barred from raising it on appeal. We agree. In United States v. Mennuti, 679 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir.1982), we noted that 93 [t]he law in this Circuit is clear that where a party has shifted his position on appeal and advances arguments available but not pressed below    and where the party has had ample opportunity to make the point in the trial court in a timely manner,    waiver will bar raising the issue on appeal. 94 Id. at 1036 (citation omitted). Although the suppression argument was available at trial, Jakobetz's counsel failed to raise this issue and instead argued only that the photographs were extremely prejudicial to the defendant's case and went well beyond the scope of the case we introduced. 95 Since Jakobetz failed to raise the objection at trial, we could reverse only for plain error in the admission of the evidence, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), and when our failure to reverse would result in a miscarriage of justice which denied the defendant a fair trial. U.S. v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1021 (2d Cir.1990) (citation omitted). 96 In suppressing those items seized but not particularized in the warrant, the district court found that while the police warrant was lawful and that the discovery of the unparticularized items was inadvertent, see U.S. v. Bonfiglio, 713 F.2d 932, 936 (2d Cir.1983), the police had failed to demonstrate probable cause for seizing those items. However, the court's suppression order failed to mention that three months earlier, based on a properly supported application, the court had granted authority to the prosecution to develop the nine rolls of the seized 35mm film not specified in the warrant. Despite Jakobetz's assertions to the contrary, the district court's prior order permitting the government to process the undeveloped film indicates that the suppression order was not intended to cover this film. Concluding, as we do, that the court's admission of the film was not plain error, we reject Jakobetz's claim as to the developed photographs. 97