Opinion ID: 691027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Suppress: Marijuana

Text: 21 Janus contends that the district court erred in refusing to grant his motion to suppress the marijuana found during the search. Janus argues that the marijuana was outside the scope of the warrant and that the district court erroneously concluded that it was in plain view. 22 The warrant did not authorize the agents to search for marijuana. However, where the government has a warrant to search a given area for specific objects, and in the course of the search come across some other article of incriminating character, the plain view doctrine may permit the government to seize the evidence without a warrant. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037-38, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (plurality opinion). We note the caution, however, with which we must apply the plain view doctrine: [I]t is important to keep in mind that, in the vast majority of cases, any evidence seized by the police will be in plain view, at least at the moment of seizure. Id. 23 To justify a warrantless seizure based on plain view, therefore, we have held that three conditions must be satisfied. United States v. Naugle, 997 F.2d 819, 822 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 562, 126 L.Ed.2d 462 (1993). First, the seizing agent must not have violated the Fourth Amendment  'in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed.'  Id. (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2308, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). Second, the item must not only be in plain sight, but its incriminating character must also be immediately apparent. Id. (quoting Horton, 496 U.S. at 136, 110 S.Ct. at 2308). Third,  'not only must the officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen, but he or she must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself.'  Id. (quoting Horton, 496 U.S. at 137, 110 S.Ct. at 2308). 24 We are satisfied that these elements have been met under the present circumstances, and thus the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. First, the district court found that the warrant permitted the agents to search the second floor and the bedroom area for drug paraphernalia and documents. R.Vol. 3 at 138-39. Additionally, the court found that the drawer containing the marijuana was a drawer where documents could have been located, and in fact, documents had been found in the bedroom. Id. at 139. These findings can hardly be considered clearly erroneous. Naugle, 997 F.2d at 822 ( 'A lawful search of fixed premises generally extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found and is not limited by the possibility that separate acts of entry or opening may be required to complete the search.'  (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-21, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2170-71, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982))). Second, the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent to Agent Burke who testified that he recognized the plants to be marijuana as soon as he opened the drawer. R.Vol. 5 at 204. Third, Agent Burke had a lawful right of access to the marijuana. The marijuana was in a drawer where Agent Burke was permitted to look, and he did nothing more than open the drawer.