Court Opinion

ID: 9665268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:43:52.61502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:14.344460
License: Public Domain

SNELL, Judge
(dissenting).
As I believe the district court wrongly allowed the use of evidence obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, I respectfully dissent.
The majority points out both that the fourth amendment to the United States *190Constitution requires that search warrants particularly describe objects to be seized, United States v. Clark, 531 F.2d 928, 931 (8th Cir.1976); State v. Bakker, 262 N.W.2d 538, 545 (Iowa 1978), and that the plain view doctrine is an exception to this requirement, State v. Oliver, 341 N.W.2d 744, 745 (Iowa 1983). I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s application of that doctrine to the facts of the present case.
After listing the elements the State must show in order for the plain view doctrine to apply, see Oliver, 341 N.W.2d at 746, the majority discusses the record evidence in support of each of these elements. The second element required for an application of the plain view doctrine is that the discovery of the evidence be inadvertent. Id. The majority’s complete analysis of that element is as follows:
An agent may not know in advance the location of certain evidence and intend to seize it using the plain view doctrine as a pretext, (citation omitted) No basis exists for conclusion that the brown leather coat was intentionally omitted from the search warrant, that the agents knew the location of the coat in advance, and that the plain view doctrine was used merely as a pretext. As stated by Agent Bless-man, the failure to include the brown leather coat on the search warrant was a oversight.
I fail to see how this analysis adequately addresses the issue of inadvertence. No one argues on this appeal that the search involved here was a pretext search. The contention urged upon us is that the search exceeded the scope of the warrant and was therefore exploratory in violation of the defendant’s fourth amendment rights. I believe that a correct analysis of the defendant’s allegations and the State’s plain view defense on this issue leads us to agree with the defendant.
The State argues in its brief that the “discovery was inadvertent, as that term is used by the courts, because the agents did not know for certain that the coat would be located in the house before searching.” The non-sequitur in the State’s argument should be obvious to this court. It does not follow from the agents’ uncertainty, even assuming that to be true, that the jacket’s discovery was inadvertent. I note initially that the State’s premise is apparently belied by the State’s contention that the jacket was “inadvertently omitted from the application and the warrant.” This concession by the State also negates the majority’s statement that “no basis exists for the conclusion that ... the agents knew the location of the coat in advance....” In any event, the correct inquiry under the fourth amendment is whether the agents were looking for the jacket. If they were, the constitution requires that it be listed on the warrant.
Agent John Blessman, responsible for the application for and affidavit in support of the search warrant and one of the agents who conducted the search, conceded in his deposition testimony that “everyone was aware [prior to the search] that a brown leather coat was involved.” Bless-man went on to admit that the seized jacket was an object of the search. In State v. Sheppard, 325 N.W.2d 911, 915-16 (Iowa Ct.App.1982), this court quoted with approval the following annotation from 29 L.Ed.2d 1067, 1075:
If law enforcement officers anticipate before going to a particular place that they will find certain incriminating evidence there, and if there is no substantial danger that taking the time to obtain a valid warrant will result in the disappearance of the evidence, the officers must obtain a valid warrant authorizing the seizure of such evidence, ‘exigent circumstances’ justifying the failure to obtain a valid warrant in such a situation are lacking, and the mere fact that the evidence which the officers anticipated seizing at the particular place turns out to be in plain view when they arrive there cannot justify their seizure of the evidence without their first having obtained a valid warrant.
It is apparent to me that the agents were looking for the jacket when they searched the defendant’s home. Similarly apparent *191is the glaring inconsistency involved in concluding that when the State went into the defendant’s home seeking a jacket, the State’s discovery of that jacket was “inadvertent.”
The State cites to Oliver in support of its argument that the plain view doctrine should be applied. In Oliver, our supreme court was faced with a situation, similar in this respect to the case at bar, where evidence seized during a search was not listed on the search warrant. In upholding the seizure under the plain view doctrine, the court stated that “[t]he record establishes that the magazines were omitted from the warrant application by oversight rather than intention, and the officers were not looking for them.” Accordingly, the court found the discovery of the evidence inadvertent within the meaning of the plain view doctrine. In the present case, the record satisfies me that the agents expected to seize the defendant’s jacket and I would decline consequently to find its discovery inadvertent. As the plurality in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), the opinion which enunciated the plain view doctrine in its current form, stated during its discussion of the element of inadvertence:
If the initial intrusion is bottomed upon a warrant that fails to mention a particular object, though the police know its location and intend to seize it, then there is a violation of the express constitutional requirement of “Warrants ... particularly describing ... [the] things to be seized.”
Id. at 471, 91 S.Ct. at 2040, 29 L.Ed.2d at 586.
The issue is not one of pretext, it is one of preventing an initially limited search from turning into a general one. A search warrant accomplishes this objective by requiring a particular description of the things to be seized. Id. at 467, 91 S.Ct. at 2038-39, 29 L.Ed.2d at 583. In the present case, that goal was not achieved. I would not sanction the means employed. I would hold that the seizure of the defendant’s jacket was not constitutionally justified and would reverse and remand for a new trial.
SCHLEGEL, J., joins this dissent.