Crouch Et Al. v. United States
102 S. Ct. 491, 454 U.S. 952 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement permits the seizure of evidence only when its incriminating character is 'immediately apparent' to the police, without the need for a further search or inspection.
Facts:
- Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents received information that Mary Crouch and her son, Gary Crouch, might be manufacturing methamphetamine.
- Gary Crouch, an inmate at a correctional institute, was released on a 3-day furlough.
- Agents obtained a warrant authorizing a search of the Crouch residence for 'chemicals, laboratory equipment, and other paraphernalia' used for illegal methamphetamine manufacturing.
- During the search, agents found chemicals and equipment but no finished methamphetamine.
- In a desk drawer, agents discovered a bundle of personal letters in open envelopes from Mary to Gary.
- The agents removed the letters, read their contents, and found they contained information about manufacturing methamphetamine.
- Agents found a second batch of letters, from Gary to Mary, in Mary's purse, which also contained incriminating evidence.
- Both sets of letters were seized as evidence by the agents.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary and Gary Crouch were charged with federal drug offenses.
- At trial in the U.S. District Court, the Crouches filed a motion to suppress the letters, which the court denied.
- Following a trial, both were convicted.
- The Crouches (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, challenging the denial of their suppression motion.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the seizure of the letters was proper under the plain view doctrine.
- The Crouches (petitioners) then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement permit law enforcement officers to read personal letters, discovered during a lawful search for other items, to determine if their contents are incriminating?
Opinions:
Majority - N/A
The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari and did not issue a majority opinion on the merits of the case. Therefore, the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which held the search was permissible under the plain view doctrine, was left in place without review by the Supreme Court.
Dissenting - Justice White
No. The plain view exception does not permit officers to read personal papers to determine if they are incriminating, as doing so constitutes a separate, warrantless search. The dissent argues that the plain view doctrine is strictly limited to items whose incriminating nature is 'immediately apparent.' Permitting even a 'brief perusal' of documents not named in a warrant expands the search into a general exploratory search, which the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. Justice White contends that reading personal letters is a significant privacy intrusion analogous to the unconstitutional viewing of films in Walter v. United States. The dissent concludes that the question of whether the plain view doctrine allows the reading of personal documents is an extraordinarily important issue that threatens to erode Fourth Amendment protections and should have been decided by the Court.
Analysis:
This dissent from a denial of certiorari highlights a critical, unresolved issue in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: the scope of the plain view doctrine as it applies to documents and writings. By not taking the case, the Supreme Court left in place a circuit split on whether police may conduct a 'brief perusal' of documents to ascertain their incriminating nature. The dissent argues this ambiguity creates a risk of general, exploratory searches of private papers, undermining core Fourth Amendment protections. The lack of a definitive ruling means that the legality of such searches varies by jurisdiction, creating uncertainty for both citizens and law enforcement.
