Opinion ID: 183984
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: A.4.c. Plain View Examination of File Contents

Text: After highlighting the Kazvid folder, Detective Vanadia viewed a list of file names with file extensions suggesting child pornography videos. Vanadia testified that he opened these video files to confirm they contained child pornography. Appx. at A-534-35, A-591-92. The Government claims in their brief that under the plain view doctrine, once Detective Vanadia saw the lurid file names he was then empowered to seize and examine the contents of those files. Gov't's Br. 38. Stabile argues, and the District Court concluded, that opening the video files to view their contents exceeded the scope of the state search warrant and that plain view did not apply, resulting in an illegal search. [19] The state search warrant issued on October 19, 2006 authorized Vanadia to search all six hard drives only for evidence of financial crimes. [20] We need not resolve whether the plain view doctrine applies to examination of contents of the video files because the independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines apply to the contents of all the video files. Therefore, we ultimately conclude that suppression is not required.