Opinion ID: 201438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plain-view exception to the warrant requirement

Text: 34 Ribeiro offers a fair statement of the plain-view issue in this case: The plain-view issue ..., assuming that the Court concludes that the warrant was supported by probable cause, can be simply expressed: was the speaker hanging out of the cabinet, permitting a view into the interior of the cabinet, when the officers entered Ribeiro's bedroom or did one of them, as Ribeiro contended, remove the speaker from the cabinet themselves? Ribeiro then claims that the resolution of this issue involves more than a simple credibility contest between the police, on the one hand, and Ribeiro and his girlfriend, on the other. To convince us, he offers a number of creative arguments and alternative theories about why he would not have done what the government says he did. We are unpersuaded. 35 First, in a familiar note, Ribeiro dismisses the documentary search warrant as a mere pretense because the police intended to search for drugs from the outset. Ribeiro emphasizes that the police asked him where his drugs were immediately upon arrest, and the officers in the apartment asked his girlfriend the same question. As the district court correctly noted, however, this argument is a dead-end. As long as the search was within the scope of the warrant, it is no matter that the officers may have hoped to find drugs: 36 The fact that an officer is interested in an item of evidence and fully expects to find it in the course of a search should not invalidate its seizure if the search is confined in area and duration by the terms of a warrant or a valid exception to the warrant requirement. 37 Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 138-39, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990); see also United States v. Robles, 45 F.3d 1, 6 n. 3 (1st Cir.1995) (`inadvertence' is not a necessary condition of a plain view seizure); United States v. Giannetta, 909 F.2d 571, 578 n. 6 (1st Cir.1990) (same). 38 Second, Ribeiro claims that it simply defies belief that he would have left the drugs in plain view because (1) he wanted to keep his girlfriend ignorant of his dealing and (2) more importantly, he had a young puppy in the apartment known for chewing up everything in sight. If he had left the speaker open, the result would likely be a dead puppy and ruined drugs. The reality is that people can be careless. That fact did not require the district court to reject the testimony of the police officers. 39 Third, although Det. Khoury testified that he did not remove the speaker cover, Ribeiro faults the government for not disproving the possibility that another officer may have done so before Khoury entered the room. The government's burden to prove its entitlement to the plain-view exception 8 does not mean, however, that it must disprove all of the defendant's alternative theories, no matter how speculative or implausible. Based on Det. Khoury's testimony, the district court found that he and the other officers entered the room more or less simultaneously. Ribeiro's sheer speculation aside, there is nothing to suggest that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous or that the police officers had time for the shenanigans that he suggests. 40 Affirmed.