United States v. Edward Lee Donnes
947 F.2d 1430, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 24438, 1991 WL 205867 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police officer's warrantless search of a closed, opaque container violates the Fourth Amendment when it exceeds the scope of a prior private search, even if the container is found in proximity to contraband that was in plain view.
Facts:
- Edward Lee Donnes had recently lived with his girlfriend, Cheryl Flippin, in a rental house in Sheridan, Wyoming, which they had secured with a padlock.
- On March 23, 1989, state officers executed a search warrant at the house and, after the search, the landlord, Richard Marousak, resecured the property with a new padlock.
- Five days later, on March 28, Donnes returned to retrieve his belongings, discovered his key no longer worked, and forced the door open.
- A neighbor reported a break-in, and police arrived, eventually taking Donnes and his companions to the police station.
- After Donnes was removed, Marousak and his friend, Bill Bertrand, arrived and entered the house with a police officer who remained at the scene.
- Inside, Bertrand found a bulging glove on the floor, picked it up, saw a syringe inside, and immediately gave the glove to the officer.
- The officer then removed the syringe and a closed, opaque camera lens case from the glove.
- The officer proceeded to open the camera lens case without a warrant, discovering what was later determined to be methamphetamine.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Lee Donnes was charged in the U.S. District Court with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- Donnes filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing it was the fruit of a warrantless search that violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- Donnes entered a conditional guilty plea, which reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion.
- Donnes, as defendant-appellant, appealed the adverse suppression ruling 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 a police officer's warrantless search of a closed, opaque camera lens case violate the Fourth Amendment when a private citizen discovered the case inside a glove next to a syringe but did not open the case himself before handing it to the officer?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Baldock
Yes, the officer's search violated the Fourth Amendment. A government search following a private search is unconstitutional if it exceeds the scope of the private search. Here, the private citizen, Bertrand, only saw the syringe inside the glove; he never opened the camera lens case or viewed its contents. The officer's subsequent action of opening the case constituted a new, separate search that went beyond what the private citizen had discovered. An individual maintains a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a closed, opaque container. While the officer's discovery of the syringe may have established probable cause to seize the lens case, it did not justify a warrantless search of its contents. The plain view exception does not apply because the incriminating character of the contents of an ambiguous container like a camera lens case is not 'immediately apparent.' The officer should have obtained a warrant before opening the case.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle established in United States v. Jacobsen that a government search following a private one is limited to the scope of the initial private intrusion. It clarifies that the 'plain view container' exception is narrowly construed and does not permit the warrantless search of an ordinary, opaque container merely because it is found near contraband. The case solidifies the distinction between the lawful seizure of a container based on probable cause and the unlawful search of that container, emphasizing that the latter generally requires a warrant. This holding serves as a significant check on the ability of law enforcement to expand upon discoveries made by private parties without first seeking judicial authorization.
