Opinion ID: 1541806
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Private Search

Text: We note at the outset that if, after he found the rope, William had handed it to Det. Swierk in the same manner as he furnished the handcuffs and other evidence he found, the only issue before us would be the legitimacy of the private search, concerning which issue the Fourth Amendment would not be implicated. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113-14, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984) (noting that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches or seizures is wholly inapplicable `to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official') (quoting Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 662, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 65 L.Ed.2d 410 (1980) (Blackmun, J., dissenting)). However, when deciding whether to admit the fruits of a private search, it is incumbent upon the trial court to determine whether the law enforcement agency's involvement was not a significant expansion of the prior private search. von Bulow, 475 A.2d at 1015; see also Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 115, 104 S.Ct. 1652 (The additional invasions of respondents' privacy by the Government agent must be tested by the degree to which they exceeded the scope of the private search.). Clearly, the issue before us is not whether there was an expansion of a private search. We are satisfied that the rope was discovered during a private search, to which the Fourth Amendment has no application. See State v. Pailon, 590 A.2d 858, 861 (R.I.1991) (The Fourth Amendment is not implicated when one's privacy is violated by someone other than a member of law enforcement.). The record confirms that William told Det. Swierk (either in person or on the telephone) that he had found the rope in the closet, and he invited the detective to the home with the express purpose of turning the rope over to him. William showed the detective where he found the rope, and Det. Swierk then seized it. Detective Swierk did not search or rummage around in the closet, nor did he expand the search in any way. He had been advised that the rope was in the closet, exactly where William left it after discovering it. Further, William discovered the rope on his own, without any suggestion or encouragement from the police. Thus, we are satisfied that the rope was found during a private search. Nevertheless, Det. Swierk entered the home, upon invitation, went to the master bedroom, and seized the rope without a warrant. Property is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652. The manner in which the rope was seized requires analysis beyond the law of private search. The trial justice found that the officer was in the home with the consent of the homeowner. We agree.