Court Opinion

ID: 9523710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:45:58.478013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:21.905285
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I concur in the majority opinion to the extent that it affirms the first three counts of receiving stolen property, I respectfully dissent to reversal of the fourth count.
The majority opinion correctly states the legal concepts in regard to the "plain view" doctrine, but misapplies the law to the evidence contained in the record. The police lawfully entered the shed under a valid search warrant. Once inside, they observed late model automobiles in various degrees of dismantlement. Cutting torches had been used to "chop" cars that appeared too new and undamaged to be in a salvage yard. The locks on several vehicles had been punched out, and steering columns were mysteriously dismantled. The officers encountered a situation clearly indicating the operation of a clandestine "chop shop," in which the true identity of stolen automobiles is transformed for the purpose of resale. The automobiles were of "readily apparent" criminality, and clearly connected to contemporaneous criminal activity. Based upon things which ap*1215peared in "plain view," police gained probable cause sufficient to support a subsequent search warrant.
Additionally it should be noted that police took down vehicle identification and license numbers which later indicated that the automobiles were in fact stolen. These numbers are in plain view on all autos for the purpose of aiding identification. Under the circumstances presented here, no ille gal search was conducted by police in copying and checking these numbers.
The trial court did not err in admitting evidence supporting this conviction. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of conviction as to all four counts of receiving stolen property.