United States v. Andrew Eschweiler
745 F.2d 435 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the plain view doctrine, a container that unequivocally proclaims its contents on its exterior is not considered a private place, and an officer may search it and seize its contents without a warrant if found during an otherwise lawful search.
Facts:
- Andrew Eschweiler sold illegal drugs from his apartment.
- Eschweiler befriended Harold Abrahamsen and permitted him to live in the apartment rent-free.
- Abrahamsen, seeking money, voluntarily approached the FBI and offered to serve as an informant against Eschweiler.
- The FBI accepted Abrahamsen's offer and equipped him with a concealed recording device.
- Abrahamsen made three visits to Eschweiler's apartment, where he recorded conversations in which Eschweiler made incriminating statements about his drug dealing.
- During a subsequent warranted search of the apartment for drugs and money, an FBI agent searched the pockets of an overcoat hanging in a closet.
- The agent found a small, unsealed envelope in a pocket which was labeled "safe-deposit box key" and bore the name of a bank.
- The agent opened the envelope and removed the key inside.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government prosecuted Andrew Eschweiler in the U.S. District Court.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Eschweiler of federal narcotics violations.
- The district court sentenced Eschweiler to five years in prison.
- Eschweiler, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 a law enforcement officer violate the Fourth Amendment by opening an unsealed envelope, found in plain view during a lawful search, when the envelope's exterior inscription and characteristics unequivocally reveal its contents as a safe-deposit box key?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No. The search of the envelope did not violate the Fourth Amendment because a container that proclaims its contents on the outside is not a private place. The initial search of the overcoat pocket was valid under the warrant, as it was a place where cocaine or money could be concealed. Once the agent found the envelope, its inscription and characteristics made its contents obvious, effectively making it 'transparent in the contemplation of the law' and removing any reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, opening the envelope to retrieve the key was not an unreasonable search. The court distinguished this from cases involving ambiguous containers or materials protected by the First Amendment. As an alternative holding, the court reasoned that even if opening the envelope was an error, the evidence from the safe-deposit box was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine, as the envelope itself and a separate receipt provided sufficient probable cause for a warrant to search the box.
Analysis:
This decision refines the plain view doctrine by establishing that a container's self-declaratory nature can extinguish an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy in its contents. It creates a precedent that the 'incriminating character' of an item can be apparent not just from the item itself, but from the exterior of the container holding it. This 'plain view of the contents' principle allows law enforcement to bypass the warrant requirement for containers whose contents are a 'foregone conclusion' due to their external appearance, thereby potentially broadening the scope of permissible searches during the execution of a warrant.
