Commonwealth v. Hatcher
2006 WL 1358363, 2006 Ky. LEXIS 131, 199 S.W.3d 124 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an object to be lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine, its incriminating character must be immediately apparent to the officer without the need for any further physical investigation or manipulation. An officer's entry into a home to conduct such an investigation requires a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances.
Facts:
- The Paducah Police Department received an anonymous report of a potentially abandoned minor at the residence of Dedra Hatcher.
- Officer Darryl Carr and two other officers responded to the home.
- After knocking and receiving no response, Officer Carr looked through a window and saw someone asleep on a couch.
- After Officer Carr knocked again, Hatcher's adolescent son opened the front door.
- From his position at the doorway, Officer Carr observed a ceramic pipe with a skull design on a table in the front room.
- Officer Carr asked the son if he could enter the residence, and the son permitted him to come inside.
- Once inside, Officer Carr picked up the pipe and detected the odor of marijuana emanating from it.
- Hatcher returned home, admitted to owning the pipe for personal use, and was subsequently arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth charged Dedra Hatcher in the McCracken Circuit Court (trial court) with second offense possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Hatcher filed a motion to suppress the pipe, arguing it was seized in violation of her constitutional rights.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding the seizure was justified under the 'plain view' exception.
- Hatcher entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving her right to appeal the trial court's ruling on her suppression motion.
- Hatcher (as appellant) appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), which reversed the trial court's judgment.
- The Commonwealth (as appellant) filed a motion for discretionary review with the Supreme Court of Kentucky (highest court), which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the warrantless seizure of a pipe from a private residence violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures when an officer, lawfully standing at the doorway, observes the pipe but must enter the home and physically inspect it to determine its incriminating nature?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Johnstone
Yes, the warrantless seizure of the pipe violates the Fourth Amendment. A seizure under the plain view doctrine is only permissible if the officer is lawfully present, has a lawful right of access to the object, and its incriminating character is 'immediately apparent.' Here, the incriminating character of the pipe was not immediately apparent from the doorway, as it could have been used for legal purposes like smoking tobacco. The officer only developed probable cause after he entered the home and conducted a further search by picking up the pipe to smell it. This physical manipulation, analogous to the unconstitutional search in Arizona v. Hicks, was an unlawful search because the officer lacked a warrant, exigent circumstances, or validly obtained consent to enter and inspect the item. The officer had no lawful right of access to the object to conduct this further investigation.
Dissenting - Justice Graves
No, the warrantless seizure of the pipe did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The trial court correctly found that the adolescent son consented to Officer Carr's entry into the residence. This consent was valid, as a reasonable officer could believe the son had the authority to allow him inside. Once lawfully inside the residence, the officer was able to detect the odor of marijuana from the pipe, which provided the probable cause necessary to establish its incriminating character. The act of picking up the pipe was a minimal intrusion and not a separate, unjustified search as in Arizona v. Hicks. Therefore, all elements of the plain view doctrine were satisfied, and the seizure was constitutional.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict requirements of the plain view doctrine, specifically clarifying the 'immediately apparent' prong established in precedents like Arizona v. Hicks. The court holds that probable cause must exist based on observation alone, without any physical manipulation of the object, which constitutes a separate search requiring its own justification. The ruling also underscores the critical importance of procedural preservation, as the majority's refusal to consider the consent issue was dispositive for its legal analysis. This case serves as a strong protection for the sanctity of the home against warrantless entries and searches based on an officer's mere suspicion.
