Opinion ID: 1119095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the district court's admission of the book Witchcraft violated Simmons' Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Text: Simmons contends that the book Witchcraft was illegally seized and should not have been admitted at trial because the book was not listed on the search warrant and neither the plain-view doctrine nor the good-faith exception applies (or has only limited application) to material protected by the First Amendment. Because the satanic themes expressed in Witchcraft are protected by the First Amendment and the police did not have any rational nexus between satanism and Jason's death prior to the search, Simmons maintains that the warrant requirement that items to be seized be listed on the warrant should be strictly construed and that the police improperly engaged in the ad hoc seizure of the book. We disagree. The standard for probable cause in seizing material presumptively protected by the First Amendment is no higher than any other material. See New York v. P.J. Video, 475 U.S. 868, 874-75, 106 S.Ct. 1610, 1614-15, 89 L.Ed.2d 871 (1986). In the instant case, police did not seize the book because its materials were criminal, but rather because the contents of the book were relevant to the crime under investigation. See Bennett v. State, 106 Nev. 135, 140, 787 P.2d 797, 800 (1990) (poetry in plain view detailing defendant's desire to kill was lawfully seized). Consequently, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that the book had evidentiary value and was validly seized pursuant to the plain-view doctrine.