Opinion ID: 1825821
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Immediately apparent incriminating nature.

Text: Defendant argues, in essence, that the necessity of taking and tracing serial numbers to determine whether the property was stolen belies the assertion that the incriminating nature of the property was immediately apparent. [2] He agrees that this requirement that the incriminating nature be immediately apparent means only that the officer must have probable cause to believe the property is subject to seizure. To require the police to secure a warrant when inadvertently coming across objects reasonably believed to be stolen would serve no other purpose than that of unnecessary formalism. State v. Severtson, 304 Minn. 487, 490, 232 N.W.2d 95, 97 (1975). The officers had probable cause to believe the property stolen. Defendant was believed to be part of a burglary ring responsible for the theft of much personal property, including firearms. [3] At his residence they found an unusual number of items, strangely stored or located, and with serial numbers removed. Although at the time the officers converged at 273 Etna Street they had no suspicions that they would find stolen property on the premises other than the speakers, what they found on the premises combined with the background information detailed in the affidavits gave rise to a reasonable inference that they had stumbled upon stolen goods. The two cases upon which defendant relies are distinguishable: United States v. Clark, 531 F.2d 928 (8 Cir. 1976); United States v. Gray, 484 F.2d 352 (6 Cir. 1973). In Clark, police officers executed a search warrant for controlled substances at the residence and adjoining motorcycle repair shop of Clark. While on the premises, they recorded the serial numbers from various tools and motors, from rifles and a Browning pistol found in a drawer in a bedroom, and from Clark's stereo equipment. Some 3 weeks later, the serial number from the Browning pistol was relayed to a Federal agent whose investigation subsequently disclosed possible violations of Federal firearms statutes. A second warrant was issued and the pistol was seized. The district court granted defendant's motion to suppress the evidence because the pistol was obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure. The court of appeals affirmed, noting the random recordation of serial numbers in concluding that the officers had conducted an exploratory search violative of Clark's Fourth Amendment right of privacy. Similarly, in United States v. Gray, supra , an officer recorded the serial numbers from two rifles discovered in a closet during the course of the officer's search pursuant to a warrant for intoxicating liquors and apparatus or materials used in the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. A subsequent computer check revealed that the rifles were stolen. A second search warrant issued, the guns were seized, and Gray was convicted. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the evidence should have been suppressed. In neither of these cases did the officers entertain a reasonable belief that the objects whose serial numbers they randomly recorded had been stolen, nor was there an unusual number of items, strangely located, and with serial numbers removed. In neither case, moreover, was the defendant believed to be a part of a burglary ring as was alleged in the affidavit in support of the first search warrant for 273 Etna Street. We hold that the property was in plain view and properly seized. Affirmed.