Opinion ID: 3157591
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Warrantless Seizures of Containers Under the Fourth Amendment

Text: Â¶17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits âunreasonable searches and seizuresâ of personal property. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Warrantless seizures of personal property are presumptively unreasonable, and hence invalid, under the Fourth Amendment. Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 (2001); People v. Gothard, 185 P.3d 180, 183 (Colo. 2008). This general rule holds true where the property seized is a closed container the contents of which remain concealed. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 700â01 (1983); see also Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133â34 (1990); United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113â14 (1984). We have previously characterized computers as containers for purposes of search and seizure law. E.g., People v. Gall, 30 P.3d 145, 153 (Colo. 2001) (finding âcontainer rationaleâ of prior Fourth Amendment cases âequally applicable to nontraditional, technological âcontainersââ such as the laptop computers at issue there); cf. People v. Herrera, 2015 CO 60, Â¶ 31, 357 P.3d 1227, 1232â33 (analogizing a text message folder to a closedÂ container). However, because the Fourth Amendment demands only reasonableness, the warrant requirement applicable to such container seizures is subject to âcertain reasonable exceptions.â See Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1856 (2011). Â¶18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The People argue that one such exceptionâplain viewâapplies here. 4