Opinion ID: 852902
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Contraband in plain view?

Text: We first observe that the plain view doctrine is not actually at issue in this case. An exception to the warrant requirement, the plain view doctrine is applicable when police are not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently come across incriminating items. Warner v. State, 773 N.E.2d 239, 245 (Ind.2002); see also Sloane v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1287, 1291 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (noting that the plain view doctrine stands for the premise that objects which are in plain view of an officer who rightfully occupies a particular location can be seized without a warrant and are admissible as evidence), trans. denied. Here, pursuant to a warrant, officers seized the very contraband for which they were specifically searching. And at trial there was no challenge made to the contraband's admissibility. In essence an exception to the warrant requirement is not at issue here. Rather the term plain view in the context of this case is used in a more generic sense, namely: the contraband is in a location where it can be plainly viewed and the incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent. See Houser v. State, 678 N.E.2d 95, 101 (Ind.1997). The record shows that the drugs in this case were found in the basement laundry room of the Mutz Court residence in cabinets and cans and closed stuff. R. at 117, 159. More specifically Jeffrey Krider, one of the officers on the scene who testified at trial, said that in conducting the search he first went to the laundry room area to a corner cabinet. Id. at 74. The following exchange then occurred: [Deputy Prosecutor]: And did you open the cabinet door? [Officer Krider]: Yes. [Deputy Prosecutor]: What did you see when you opened the cabinet door? [Officer Krider]: There was a cigar box, a couple of bags of baggies, I think a can of tar remover. [Deputy Prosecutor]: Did you take anything out? [Officer Krider]: The cigar box. [Deputy Prosecutor]: Did you open it? [Officer Krider]: Yes I did. [Deputy Prosecutor]: And what did you observe inside of it? [Officer Krider]: There was a baggie containing a white powdery substance. [Deputy Prosecutor]: What did you believe that to be at the time? [Officer Krider]: Based on my training and experience as a Police Officer Cocaine. Id. at 75. The other on-the-scene officer testifying at trial, Sgt. Brian Roach, also began his search [i]n the laundry room, which is just off the basement. Id. at 159. Sgt. Roach testified that Officer Krider pointed out to him the cabinet and cigar box which he removed. The following relevant exchange occurred: [Deputy Prosecutor]: Once you removed the cigar box what else did you find? [Sgt. Roach]: It was a tin can, maybe a fifty can, [that] you see during Christmas season, it was underneath the cigar box, I opened it up and found digital scales then there was also a sandwich bag, and inside the sandwich bag was a yellowish rocklike substance which I thought was Crack Cocaine. Id. at 162-63. Sgt. Roach also testified that the scales were concealed in a black folded leather case. Id. After Sgt. Roach testified about his search of the cabinets, the following exchange occurred: [Deputy Prosecutor]: All right where did you move to next? [Sgt. Roach]: I don't know specifically next, but eventually I found my way to below the cabinets, there were some five gallon buckets like paint buckets stacked, the one on top was either red or orange, I opened it up and inside it was a larger bag of what I believed to be marijuana a green leafy substance. Id. at 165-66. When asked what else he found in the basement laundry room, Sgt. Roach testified, [O]n top of those same cabinets was a gray plastic bag upon opening it, there were a glass jar, measuring cup, a spoon and a pots [sic]. They all had a white powdery residue. Those items are commonly used to turn powdered cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride into Crack cocaine, or Cocaine base. Id. at 168. The record makes clear that none of the drugs and paraphernalia seized by the officers was in a location where it could be plainly viewed. With the exception of the cookware with cocaine residue, all items were hidden out of view inside of closed containers. And even with respect to the cookware, it was found inside a bag which an officer opened to determine the contents. Further, the incriminating character of the contraband was not immediately apparent. See Lampkins, 685 N.E.2d at 700 (noting that the principle of plain view is invoked only where the incriminating character of the contraband is immediately apparent and declaring that a closed Tylenol bottle does not constitute contraband in plain view). We also observe that the plain view additional circumstance is generally applicable where the defendant is physically present at or near the location where the contraband is found. See, e.g., id. at 699-700 (defendant in automobile where contraband found); Person v. State, 764 N.E.2d 743, 751 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (defendant exited bedroom where gun was found), trans. denied; Conrad v. State, 747 N.E.2d 575, 583 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (defendant asleep in bedroom where contraband found), trans. denied; Tardy v. State, 728 N.E.2d 904, 908 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (defendant found in bathroom where cocaine was located behind the toilet), trans. not sought; contra Ladd v. State, 710 N.E.2d 188, 191 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (defendant not present when drugs found in his home but holding that drugs were in plain view and in close proximity to items owned by defendant), trans. not sought. When contraband is found in plain view on premises that are not possessed exclusively by the defendant and the defendant is nowhere around we fail to see how, without more, an inference can be drawn that the defendant knows of the presence of drugs. Indeed we have said that the plain view additional circumstance means within the defendant's plain view. Henderson, 715 N.E.2d at 836. Here, not only were the contraband items not plainly viewable even by the officers conducting the search, but also Gee was not present when the items were seized. In sum, evidence of the plain view additional circumstance was insufficient to show that Gee had the intent to maintain dominion and control over the contraband.