Opinion ID: 1157261
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Seizure of Evidence

Text: We first consider the defendant's claim that the entry into the motel unit and the seizure of contraband and evidence therein constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the United States and Colorado Constitutions. U.S.Const. Amend. IV; Colo.Const. Art. II, Sec. 7. In challenging the trial court's ruling denying the motion to suppress, the defendant argues three alternative propositions: (1) Agent Shilaos' observations of the defendant through the curtains constituted a warrantless search and therefore they were invalid; (2) even if these observations were not a search, exigent circumstances did not exist for the warrantless entry into the motel room; and (3) even if exigent circumstances did exist, the subsequent warrantless search and seizure inside the motel unit were unconstitutional. We find the defendant's arguments unpersuasive.
In order for the exclusionary rule to apply, there first must be a determination that the challenged governmental conduct constitutes a search. Generally a search involves some exploratory investigation, or an invasion and quest, a looking for or seeking out, and implies a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed.... 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 2.1 at 222 (1978). Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), provides the starting point for determining whether the officer's initial observations of the defendant in the motel room constituted a search in the constitutional sense. In Katz the United States Supreme Court considered whether the governmental use of electronic equipment to overhear and record telephone conversations in a public telephone booth constituted a search and seizure. In rejecting traditional notions of trespass and constitutionally protected areas, the Court stated that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, id. at 351, 88 S.Ct. at 511, 19 L.Ed.2d at 582, and the reach of that Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure. Id. at 353, 88 S.Ct. at 512, 19 L.Ed.2d at 583. The Court's determination of the threshold question of search turned on whether the governmental activities violated the privacy upon which [Katz] justifiably relied while using the phone booth .... Id. at 353, 88 S.Ct. at 512, 19 L.Ed.2d at 583. While the Katz formulation of the scope of Fourth Amendment protections generally would consider a man's home ... for most purposes [as] a place where he expects privacy, nevertheless objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the `plain view' of outsiders [would not be] `protected' because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. Id. at 361, 88 S.Ct. at 516, 19 L.Ed.2d at 588 (Harlan, J. concurring). The appropriate question in this case thus becomes whether the defendant exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy which was violated by an unjustified governmental intrusion into that privacy. See, e. g., People v. Becker, 188 Colo. 160, 533 P.2d 494 (1975). The evidence at the suppression hearing does not yield the slightest suggestion that the police or anyone acting under their direction prearranged the curtains for the specific purpose of creating visual access to the interior of the motel unit. With no evidence of such governmental action, we do not believe the resolution of the search issue should depend on such fortuities as whether the gap was caused by a defective curtain rod, the occupant's inadvertent arrangement of the curtains, or the normal hang of the curtains. See, e. g., People v. Berutko, 71 Cal.2d 84, 77 Cal.Rptr. 217, 453 P.2d 721 (1969). Here the evidence is undisputed that the observations were made by looking through a gap in the curtains from a sidewalk area used as a common entrance way to the defendant's motel unit. Under such circumstances the defendant cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy from the intrusive glance of a passer-by: A sidewalk, pathway, common entrance or similar passageway offers an implied permission to the public to enter which necessarily negates any reasonable expectancy of privacy in regard to observations made there. The officer who walks upon such property so used by the public does not wear a blindfold; the property owner [or occupant] must reasonably expect him to observe all that is visible. In substance the owner [or occupant] has invited the public and officer to look and to see. But, by the same reasoning, the officer who intrudes upon property not so open to the public enjoys no such prerogatives. Lorenzana v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Cal.3d 626, 629, 511 P.2d 33, 35, 108 Cal.Rptr. 585, 587 (1973). Accordingly, we hold that where a police officer, while walking on a sidewalk used as a common entrance way to a motel unit, observes through a visual aperture in the window curtains the actions of the defendant occurring inside the motel unit, the observations of the officer do not constitute a search in the constitutional sense of that term and do not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution.
We proceed now to the question whether there was an exigency justifying the warrantless entry into the motel unit. The doctrine of exigent circumstances is limited to those situations where, due to an emergency, the compelling need for immediate police action militates against the strict adherence to the warrant requirement. McCall v. People, Colo., 623 P.2d 397, 402 (1981). Exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest generally have been limited to those situations involving a bona fide pursuit of a fleeing suspect, e. g., Warden v. Hayden [387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967)]; United States v. Scott, 520 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1056, 96 S.Ct. 788, 46 L.Ed.2d 645 (1976), or the risk of immediate destruction of evidence, e. g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); People v. Williams, Colo., 613 P.2d 879 (1980), or a colorable claim of emergency threatening the life or safety of another, e. g., People v. Amato, 193 Colo. 57, 562 P.2d 422 (1977). The scope of the doctrine, however, must be `strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation,' Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 300 (1978), quoting Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. [1], 25-26, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 908 (1968), and the burden is on the prosecution to establish that those exigencies render the warrantless entry truly imperative. E. g., Mincey v. Arizona, supra ; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Warden v. Hayden, supra ; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948). Id. at ___, 623 P.2d at 402. The trial court's finding of exigent circumstances is adequately supported by the record. Agent Shilaos was being watched from the motel unit by the defendant's companion, Joseph Herrera, and Agent Shaw, who was in uniform, was readily visible from Herrera's point of observation. It was apparent to Herrera and the defendant that the police were in the immediate vicinity of their motel room. When Shilaos observed the defendant's illegal activity he was confronted with the urgent need to prevent the immediate destruction of the contraband. Time was of the essence and only an immediate entry into the motel unit could prevent the likely disposal of the contraband by the occupants. Even with instant entry, most of the contraband had already been flushed down the toilet.
We next consider whether the officers legitimately seized the paraphernalia on the makeup table in the bedroom and the particles of granular material on the carpet under and around the makeup table, as well as the powdery material around the toilet rim in the bathroom. The scope of [a] search must be `strictly tied to and justified by' the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2039-40, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, 693 (1969), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 904 (1968). In this case the possible destruction of the very evidence seized was the basis for the initial entry into the motel unit. Furthermore, the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant inside the motel unit and that arrest furnished ample justification for the seizure of the granular material and the narcotics paraphernalia. It is permissible for officers to search the area `within [the defendant's] immediate control'construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of ... destructible evidence. Chimel v. California, supra, 395 U.S. at 763, 89 S.Ct. at 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d at 694; see also New York v. Belton, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981). The small particles taken from the floor under and around the makeup table and from other areas in the unit could readily have been destroyed or lost if they were not seized on the spot. The other objects seized were connected with the crime and were within reach of the defendant and Herrera. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress the challenged evidence.