Opinion ID: 479829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Search and Seizure of Cocaine and Money

Text: 33 The warrant obtained by Inspector Nevarez to search the Anita Street apartment did not authorize the search for money or cocaine. The district court held, however, that the search and seizure of those items was permissible under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. We review this mixed question of law and fact de novo. United States v. Merriweather, 777 F.2d 503, 505 (9th Cir.1985) (citing United States v. Humphrey, 759 F.2d 743, 749 n. 15 (9th Cir.1985)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1497, 89 L.Ed.2d 898 (1986)). 34 To admit evidence under the plain view exception, the officers must be in a lawful position to view the items seized, the incriminating character of the evidence must be immediately apparent, and the discovery must be inadvertent. See, e.g., United States v. Washington, 782 F.2d 807, 815 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Chesher, 678 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir.1982). We have stated that the primary requisite for the application of the plain view doctrine is that the police officer has a right to be where he is when he sees the evidence. United States v. Blalock, 578 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1978). The search must be  'one directed in good faith toward the objects specified in the warrant or for other means and instrumentalities by which the crime charged had been committed.'  United States v. Alexander, 761 F.2d 1294, 1302 (9th Cir.1985) (quoting Gurleski v. United States, 405 F.2d 253, 258 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 2140, 23 L.Ed.2d 769 (1969)). Police may search all items which legitimately might contain the objects specified in the warrant. See United States v. Gomez-Soto, 723 F.2d 649, 654 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 977, 104 S.Ct. 2360, 80 L.Ed.2d 831 (1984); W.R. LaFave, Search & Seizure Sec. 410, at 154 (1978 & Supp.1986). 35 The warrant in this case authorized the search for a blue box and several other items including diagrams, directories, phone lists, or phone numbers. All of the officers who conducted the search reviewed the warrant and were aware it authorized a search for these items. The officers who conducted the search and seized the cocaine could logically conclude that the containers which held these items (the sock and shopping bag) could contain the items specified in the warrant. Officer Macleod testified the sock was heavier than normal; he lifted but did not squeeze it before opening it. Similarly, officer Gassaway testified that the white shopping bag containing the cocaine was heavy but he did not squeeze it. Both officers testified that these items were firm and unusually heavy. The evidence indicates that the discoveries were inadvertent and that the incriminating character of the money and white substance was apparent. We agree with the district court that the officers could reasonably conclude that the blue box or paper items covered by the warrant might be contained therein, and that therefore the evidence was admissible under the plain view doctrine. See Gomez-Soto, 723 F.2d at 653 (police could inspect contents of briefcase); United States v. Issacs, 708 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir.) (passim, search of ledgers), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 852, 104 S.Ct. 852, 78 L.Ed.2d 150 (1983); United States v. Hillyard, 677 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir.1982) (passim, inspection of books).