Opinion ID: 604510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Seizure of the Paper Bag

Text: 11 We next turn to the issue of the seizure and subsequent inspection of the brown paper bag. The record supports a finding that the seizure and subsequent search of the bag was justified under the plain view doctrine. The plain-view doctrine authorizes seizure of illegal or evidentiary items visible to a police officer whose access to the object has some prior Fourth Amendment justification and who has probable cause to suspect that the item is connected with criminal activity. Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 (1983) (emphasis supplied). Items found in plain view during a protective sweep may be seized. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 330 (1990). The plain view doctrine presupposes that once an officer is lawfully in a position to observe an item, the owner's privacy interest in that item is lost. Andreas, 463 U.S. at 771. 12 The officer in this case had probable cause to seize the brown paper bag which he observed in plain view on the shower stall floor. Prior to observing the bag, the police had reason to believe that Bustamante was under the influence of PCP. The officer testified that when he entered the bathroom he observed money in an open paper bag lying on the shower stall floor: an odd place to keep legitimate funds. He also stated that because the Vita Motel is a known spot to buy and sell drugs, at first I thought the money might be drug money. The officer had probable cause to believe that the bag and its contents were evidence of a crime (ironically, however, not evidence of the crime of bank robbery) based on his observation alone. 13 Given that the officer had probable cause to seize the bag based on his observation alone, he also had probable cause to search the bag further. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325-26 (1987). As Hicks observed, [i]t would be absurd to say that an object could lawfully be seized and taken from the premises, but could not be moved for closer examination. Id. at 326. In other words, probable cause will be inferred to search all areas of an object if prior to the search the object is in plain view and probable cause exists to seize it. See also United States v. Williams, 822 F.2d 1174, 1182 (D.C.Cir.1987) (when a container proclaims [its] contents, as in the situation where the container is partially open, a further inspection of the item does not constitute a search since apprehension of that which is already in plain view ... does not infringe any reasonable expectation of privacy). 14 Accordingly, the district court's denial of Bustamante's suppression motion is affirmed.