Court Opinion

ID: 9745685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 23:17:29.442425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:04.062189
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I dissent. The officer on this case testified that through a fortuitous set of circumstances he found himself (and three other officers) inside the appellant’s apartment without a search warrant. Once inside the apartment, the *209officer testified that he “looked around” and saw a “small, probably two inch bottle, its amber in color” on a dresser. According to the officer:
“A. I picked up the bottle and I asked Mr. Griffin if it was his.
Q. What did Mr. Griffin reply?
A. He admitted that the bottle was his, but he didn’t know what was in it.
Q. All right, and then what did you do next, Officer?
A. At that time I examined the contents of the bottle and placed Mr. Griffin under arrest...”
Assuming arguendo that the four officers were invited into the apartment while the appellant told his common-law wife he was being arrested, such an invitation does not include in it a consent to search the apartment or investigate “suspicious” pill bottles on dresser tops. The mere fact that the original pills were not in the bottle, assuming this could be determined through an amber bottle approximately two inches high, certainly does not constitute probable cause to seize the bottle. There is no evidence that a number five capsule is an unusual or distinct size nor any evidence that only illegal substances are packaged in such a capsule. Nor does the evidence support the conclusion that the “discovery” of the capsules by this narcotics officer was inadvertent.
Note.—Reported in 285 N. E. 2d 644.