Court Opinion

ID: 9688344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:44:15.470746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:37.652446
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring).
If and when a police officer is lawfully in a position to personally observe certain items, such as witnessed here, the owner’s privacy interest in that item is lost. I quote as follows:
The plain-view doctrine is grounded on the proposition that once police are lawfully in a position to observe an item firsthand, its owner’s privacy interest in that item is lost; the owner may retain the incidents of title and possession but not privacy.
Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771, 103 S.Ct. 3319, 3324, 77 L.Ed.2d 1003, 1010 (1983). Also, I further quote from the United States Supreme Court:
[ T]he police officer must lawfully make an “initial intrusion” or otherwise properly be in a position from which he can view a particular area....
... “[P]lain view” provides grounds for seizure of an item when an officer’s access to an object has some prior justification under the Fourth Amendment.
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 737-38, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1540-41, 75 L.Ed.2d 502, 510-11 (1983) (footnote omitted). That justification surely existed in this case. Property (items of defendant), namely a pry bar, bolt cutters, rubber gloves, and a coat, were of an incriminating nature; also, they were quite near to the scene of the crime,* and in an automobile which, because of its mobility, could quickly speed from the scene of the crime. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 807, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2163, 72 L.Ed. 2d 572, 582 n. 9 (1982), for authority on justifiable street searches (without a warrant), thereafter permitting search of vehicle at police station when vehicle is impounded.

 A safe had been thieved and asported from the Canton Food Center.