Court Opinion

ID: 9844971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:12:52.276175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:48.523004
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, J.
dissenting from the denial of the motion for rehearing.
In the Court’s initial opinion it was held, erroneously as Justice Johnson’s dissenting opinion forcefully demonstrated, that material presumptively protected by the first amendment may be seized without a warrant under the “plain view doctrine.” In the petition for rehearing, the Court is asked by respected defense counsel to reconsider whether the facts of this case permit a conclusion that the requirements for a plain view seizure were present. The Court should not be overly quick to eschew this opportunity to reconsider the question. On a proper review, in hindsight, the Court should reach the conclusion that the State failed to carry its burden of proving that the seizure of appellant’s copy of The Ugly Duckling was constitutionally permissible under the plain view doctrine.
A warrantless search and seizure is presumptively unreasonable. And, although it has been said many times, it is important to remember that it is the prosecutor who bears the burden of proving that a warrantless seizure falls within one of our carefully drawn and jealously guarded exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Bottelson, 102 Idaho 90, 92, 625 P.2d 1093, 1095 (1981). Here, where the book was seized without the authority of a warrant, it became the State’s burden to show the seizure was constitutionally permissible.
The Court cites to Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 737, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1540-41, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), for its statement of the three requirements which are required to establish a valid plain view seizure: 1) a valid initial intrusion into the constitutionally protected area, 2) the officer must inadvertently discover the evidence1, and 3) that *589it must be immediately apparent to the police that the object is subject to seizure. A review of the suppression hearing transcript shows the State fell well short of its burden under Brown.
On a reading of the appeal record it is immediately observed that the State did not present one single witness at the suppression hearing. It should go without saying that it is certainly difficult, if not impossible, to prove anything without the benefit of evidence. That seemingly indisputable observation is mentioned because the recognition of it has apparently eluded those other members of the Court who comprise the majority. Detective Kenneth Smith was a likely witness for the State, and yet he was called to the witness stand by the defense. Smith testified that he was not present when the police seized The Ugly Duckling, but had heard some things about it. To wit:
Q [BY DEFENSE COUNSEL] “Ugly Duckling” and “Sexual Encounter No. 6,” Exhibits 3 and 4, were located in the same place, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Will you describe where that was?
A I personally did not seize those items. They were seized by Detective Bart Hamilton. I have no personal knowledge of where they were seized other than what I was told by Detective Bart Hamilton.
Q Explain what your understanding from Detective Hamilton is.
A In the master closet bedroom, on the floor, in a box. And the box contained all 40 magazines plus items bl and b2 listed on the property invoice.2
* * * * * *
Q Okay. Now was the box closed or open?
A Again, I have no personal knowledge of that.
Q Okay. Has anyone told you?
A No. I don’t know.
Q All right. Have you seen the box? A Not to my recollection.
Q Was there marking on it?
A I have no recollection.
Q You have seen it since it was seized, have you not?
A My recollection is that the box was seized and then we placed it in one of our evidence boxes, and I don’t know what the status of the box is, whether it was seized or what. I have no idea.
The State’s cross-examination of Detective Smith merely re-established that the book in question was in a box along with 44 other items of legal, albeit erotic, material.
At best, all that one can discern from the record everything in the box was seized without a close examination by the police. The testimony from Detective Smith suggests that the officers did not realize they had seized sexually exploitative material until after the materials already had been taken to the police station. While searching the home the first time, the officers saw numerous videotapes which they felt had suspicious titles. Detective Smith was asked whether the decision to seek another search warrant was motivated only by those titles. He was careful to say that *590the officers relied on the other items they had seized in the first search.
Upon seeing them [the videotapes at the house], also upon reviewing the items that we did seize, in reviewing those items, we did locate items that appeared to be child pornographic, child pornography, (emphasis added)
The implication of Detective Smith’s testimony is that it was not readily apparent to the police they had seized sexually exploitative material until it was examined at the police station.
Common sense would suggest to anyone that the police properly would not have taken all forty-six items, but not take the box. The box would have been taken, if only for the convenience of handling the other materials. If the detective decided to simply take the box and everything in it back to the police station, it is entirely possible, if not probable, that the contents were not completely examined until after they had been seized. That is, Detective Hamilton could have looked at a few items, which may or may not have included the one in question, and then decided to take everything.
This “seize in haste, examine at leisure” method of police work was certainly in effect at the time of the second search of the house where the seventy-four videotapes were seized without regard for content. There is no reason to believe that the police were any more solicitous of the appellant’s first and fourth amendment rights during the first search when the Ugly Duckling was seized.
Because it is not at all clear whether the examination, not the seizure, of The Ugly Duckling occurred at the home, or later at the station, it is inappropriate for this Court to find that the State carried its burden of proving the search was justified by the plain view doctrine. If the Ugly Duckling was not discovered until the contents of the box were examined at the police station, then the seizure could not fall within the plain view exception as the seizure would have already been accomplished prior to the time it became readily apparent to the police that The Ugly Duckling was sexually exploitative material.
In sum, the Court could conclude that the search was justified by the plain view doctrine, provided however that Detective Hamilton examined the contents of the box while searching for those items listed in the search warrant, and also provided that during the examination he inadvertently saw the book, and it was immediately apparent to him that it was sexually exploitative material as that term is defined in I.C. § 18-1507(2)(j). But the Court could only so urge if Detective Hamilton had testified, which he did not. Appellate courts do not sit to engage in imagination of what might have been proveable; rather, our function is to discern what has or has not been factually proven, and then apply pertinent statutory or case precedent and principles of law. Here the State failed to prove that it knew The Ugly Duckling was sexually exploitative material before it was seized and taken to the police station. The State has utterly failed to prove its search came within the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. Accordingly, the evidence should have been suppressed, which is so as a matter of law. There are no issues of fact discernable in the State’s presentation.
The lesson which should be learned today, both by those who comprise the majority and by the officialdom of Garden City, is that police officers are entitled to more education and instruction in the laws attendant to search and seizure. This dissent does not intend to convey the message that the police officers were at fault. Rather it appears that they were untrained and unadvised relative to an undertaking which requires specialized knowledge in a particularized area of criminal law.

. The United States Supreme Court has eliminated the inadvertence requirement from the *589fourth amendment plain view doctrine. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2304, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990). The search warrant here was executed prior to the issuance of Horton. But, where the majority relies on Brown v. Texas and does not apply Horton to this case, the questions of whether Horton will be adopted under Article 1, § 17, and if it is adopted whether it applies retroactively tire left for another day.

. Actually, the inventory list shows that there were twenty-eight magazines seized along with twelve books. Additionally, there were four films and two empty film containers in the box. Out of these forty-six items seized, only two resulted in an indictment. Other items seized in the search included copies of "Playboy" and “Penthouse” and a copy of The Art of Sensual Massage. At a second search of the house, the police seized forty-six videotapes many of which were not sexually explicit or exploitative, including one on taxes, one on how to fly a mini-helicopter, the Wizard of Oz, the Blues Brothers, several made for T.V. movies and a tape of a family reunion. None of these tapes resulted in an indictment or information being filed against the appellant.