United States v. Cruz Corral
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 16202, 970 F.2d 719, 1992 WL 165160 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the plain view doctrine, police may conduct a warrantless search of a seized opaque container if they have virtual certainty of its contents due to prior observation. Alternatively, under the automobile exception, police may conduct a warrantless search of a container within a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband.
Facts:
- Cruz Corral met with two undercover narcotics detectives, Stanley Gloria and James Torres, at a Village Inn restaurant to arrange the sale of one kilogram of cocaine.
- Corral agreed to sell the cocaine for $23,000 and arranged to conduct the transaction in a nearby K-Mart parking lot.
- After the meeting, Corral returned to her residence, changed her clothes, and left with Jose Alvarez in a Nissan pick-up truck for the K-Mart.
- In the parking lot, Corral showed the detectives a brick of cocaine from her waistband; Detective Gloria cut into it and confirmed it was cocaine.
- The transaction was interrupted when a marked police car approached, causing the parties to flee. The undercover detectives radioed a surveillance team that they had personally observed the cocaine.
- A short time later, Corral and Alvarez returned to the same K-Mart parking lot in the Nissan truck.
- When uniformed officers initiated an investigatory stop of the truck, Detective Griego observed Corral fumbling with her clothing and placing an object behind the passenger seat.
Procedural Posture:
- Cruz Corral was charged in U.S. District Court with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Corral filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of the Nissan truck and her residence.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress, ruling the vehicle search was justified by the plain view doctrine and the residential search warrant was supported by probable cause.
- Following a trial, Corral was convicted on both counts.
- Corral, as the Appellant, appealed the district court's denial of her suppression motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 the warrantless seizure and subsequent search of an opaque package from a vehicle violate the Fourth Amendment when police have previously seen its illicit contents and have probable cause to believe it contains contraband?
Opinions:
Majority - Theis, Senior District Judge.
No. The warrantless seizure and search of the package did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The seizure was justified under the plain view doctrine because the investigatory stop was lawful, the officer could see the package from a lawful vantage point, and its incriminating nature was immediately apparent given the preceding events. Although a warrant is typically required to search a seized opaque container, no warrant was needed here because the police had 'virtual certainty' of its contents, as an undercover officer had already cut the package open and verified it contained cocaine just moments earlier. This prior, confirmed knowledge eliminated any reasonable expectation of privacy in the package's contents. Alternatively, the search was independently justified by the automobile exception, which permits the warrantless search of a container in a vehicle when police have probable cause to believe it holds contraband.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and expands the application of the plain view doctrine to closed, opaque containers. The court establishes that 'virtual certainty' about a container's contents can be legally equivalent to the contents being in plain view, justifying not only a warrantless seizure but also a warrantless search. This moves beyond a literal interpretation of 'view' to a standard based on the officer's knowledge. The case also reinforces the broad scope of the automobile exception post-Acevedo, providing law enforcement with two distinct justifications for searching containers in vehicles under similar circumstances.
