United States v. Benn
1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12741, 441 F. Supp. 1268 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the plain view doctrine, a warrantless entry into a home to seize evidence is unconstitutional unless the incriminating nature of the evidence is immediately apparent to an officer from a lawful vantage point outside the home. Mere suspicion that common household items could be used for illicit purposes does not constitute the probable cause required to justify such an intrusion.
Facts:
- In April and May 1977, DEA Special Agent Ladson conducted a narcotics investigation involving Kevin Benn, including purchasing heroin that originated from Benn and was sometimes stamped 'Green Barron'.
- On June 20, 1977, law enforcement officers arrested Benn and his associate, Ronald Barnes, in their car several blocks away from Benn's residence.
- Following the arrest, Detective William Kilgallon went to Benn's home, where another individual opened the door.
- While standing outside the threshold, Kilgallon saw several common kitchen strainers and spoons on top of the refrigerator, approximately ten feet inside.
- Kilgallon then crossed the threshold and walked into the kitchen to inspect the items more closely.
- Only after entering the kitchen did Kilgallon see a box underneath the strainers that was stamped 'Green Barron,' which he knew was connected to the narcotics investigation.
- Kilgallon opened the box, found drug paraphernalia, and seized the box along with the strainers and spoons.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States brought criminal charges against Kevin Benn, Stanley Parks, and Ronald Barnes for federal narcotics violations in the United States District Court.
- Defendant Benn filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence, arguing the search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
- Defendants Parks and Barnes joined Benn's motion to suppress the evidence from the residence.
- The District Court held a suppression hearing to consider the merits of the motion.
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 items from a defendant's kitchen violate the Fourth Amendment when an officer, standing lawfully outside the open doorway, sees only common household items and only discovers their incriminating nature after crossing the threshold to inspect them?
Opinions:
Majority - Nickerson, J.
Yes, the warrantless seizure of the items violates the Fourth Amendment. The 'plain view' exception to the warrant requirement does not apply unless it is 'immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them' from their lawful vantage point. From outside the home, Detective Kilgallon only saw strainers and spoons, which are ambiguous household items with legitimate uses. The government failed to show objective facts establishing probable cause—that it was more probable than not the items were incriminating—from that vantage point. Kilgallon's entry into the home based on mere suspicion was an unconstitutional intrusion, and the incriminating box he discovered only after this illegal entry is therefore inadmissible as fruit of an unlawful search.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the heightened Fourth Amendment protection afforded to a person's home, clarifying a critical limit on the 'plain view' doctrine. It establishes that the incriminating nature of an object must be apparent before an officer crosses the threshold of a residence, preventing the doctrine from being used to justify exploratory searches based on suspicion. The ruling holds that ambiguity about an object's use must be resolved in favor of privacy, requiring police to have probable cause, not just a hunch, before intruding into a home without a warrant.
