Opinion ID: 2462205
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Significance of the contraband nature of the property observed:

Text: The contraband nature of the property in question is not of significance. The cases do not distinguish the seizure of contraband and the seizure of other evidence seen in open view from outside a constitutionally protected area. See Texas v. Brown, supra, 103 S.Ct. at 1540-41 (lumping together seizure of evidence of a crime, stolen property, contraband, and items otherwise subject to seizure which are in plain view); Coolidge, supra, 403 U.S. at 468, 91 S.Ct. at 2039 (But even where the object is contraband, this Court has repeatedly stated and enforced the basic rule that police may not enter and make a warrantless seizure.); Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 466, 76 L.Ed. 951 (1932) (invalidating the warrantless seizure of contraband liquor from a garage where it had been seen by officers from outside the garage). It is my opinion that the proper analysis in this case is as follows: (1) The initial observation during aerial surveillance was not a search and was therefore not violative of the Tennessee or United States Constitution. (2) The observation gave officers probable cause to believe that marijuana was being cultivated on the property. (3) Though the officers had probable cause, the seizure of the contraband required a warrant, absent an exception to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances, or a finding that under the open fields doctrine, the area was not constitutionally protected from physical intrusion by officers. (4) Although the facts of this case might fit under the federal version of the open fields doctrine, it does not fit under the more limited Tennessee version of the doctrine, as concluded by Justice Drowota. Also, no exigent circumstances existed. (5) Therefore, the warrantless seizure of the contraband was invalid as a matter of Tennessee Constitutional law, although it might be valid as a matter of U.S. Constitutional law under the open fields doctrine. (6) Because only the warrantless seizure of the marijuana was improper, Officer Dover's testimony concerning the observations during the aerial surveillance need not be suppressed.