Opinion ID: 573746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The January 26th Seizure

Text: 2 The plain view exception to the warrant requirement permits 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 (1982) (citations omitted). Probable cause exists when the police have reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe that the accused has committed or is committing a crime. United States v. Del Vizo, 918 F.2d 821, 825 (9th Cir.1990). Probable cause, coupled with the plain view exception, constitutes a lawful warrantless seizure. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 327 (1986). 3 A search conducted pursuant to a valid consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). Mandel does not dispute that he voluntarily gave his consent to search the bedroom. After spotting the Mac-10, Officer McKenna seized the pistol and gave it to Officer Berndt. The officers' knowledge of and experience with Mac-10 pistols was sufficient to constitute probable cause. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981). 4 Mandel suggests that the brass tube was unrecognizable as a silencer and therefore no probable cause existed. The district court specifically found that the silencer was in plain view on the bedroom floor and that Agent Berndt picked it up and immediately recognized it as such. (Appellant's Excerpt of Record at 75) Even the defendant's expert could not say that this silencer was unrecognizable as such by a trained police officer. Since the warrantless search was constitutional, there is no need to consider other grounds for upholding it.