United States v. Larry Gene Bonitz, A/K/A Gerald Wayne Guinn
826 F.2d 954, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10751 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a closed, opaque container is not justified under the "plain view" doctrine simply because officers have probable cause to suspect its contents based on the container's general appearance; the container's nature must make its contents a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, the exigent circumstances exception requires a genuine, immediate danger and cannot be invoked when officers' actions suggest the claim of emergency is pretextual.
Facts:
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents, assisted by local police, went to the defendant's parents' home with a valid warrant for his arrest for allegedly providing false information to acquire a firearm.
- Upon entering the home, officers found the defendant in his bedroom doorway and handcuffed him with his hands behind his back within two minutes.
- After the defendant was secured, officers conducted a warrantless search of his ten-by-ten-foot bedroom that lasted approximately two and a half hours.
- During this search, officers located a closed, hard plastic case under a workbench, which they opened to find an AR-15 rifle.
- An M-16 bolt carrier assembly was observed in plain sight on top of the workbench.
- Two sear kits were discovered inside plastic envelopes, which were themselves inside a small file box on the workbench.
- Officers also saw up to twenty-two cans of black powder and a hand grenade, which was later determined to be a paperweight, in the room.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a federal district court (trial court) with possessing parts for use in converting a firearm into an unregistered machine gun.
- Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the AR-15 rifle, an M-16 bolt carrier assembly, and two sear kits, arguing they were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court conducted a suppression hearing and denied the defendant's motion.
- Following the denial of the motion, the defendant was convicted of the charge.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his 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 Fourth Amendment permit law enforcement officers, after handcuffing and securing a suspect pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, to conduct a prolonged, warrantless search of the suspect's room and seize items found within closed, opaque containers under the search incident to arrest, plain view, or exigent circumstances exceptions?
Opinions:
Majority - McKay, Circuit Judge.
No. The warrantless search of the containers violated the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence found within them must be suppressed. The search incident to arrest exception did not apply to the rifle case because the defendant was already handcuffed and secured, posing no threat to officer safety or risk of destroying evidence. The plain view doctrine did not justify opening the opaque hard plastic case, as its contents were not self-evident, nor did it apply to the sear kits which were hidden inside envelopes within a file box. Finally, the government's claim of exigent circumstances based on the presence of gunpowder was a pretext, as demonstrated by the officers' prolonged, meticulous search and their failure to evacuate the defendant's parents or neighbors, indicating they did not perceive a genuine, immediate danger.
Dissenting - Baldock, Circuit Judge
Yes. The search was reasonable and justified under established Fourth Amendment exceptions. The rifle case, located only three feet from the defendant at the time of arrest, was within his area of immediate control, justifying a search incident to arrest under principles from New York v. Belton. Alternatively, experienced officers recognized the container as a gun case, which, per dicta in Arkansas v. Sanders, effectively places its contents in plain view by negating any reasonable expectation of privacy. The trial court's factual finding of exigent circumstances, based on the presence of 23 cans of gunpowder and a grenade, was not clearly erroneous and justified the safety search that properly uncovered the sear kits.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly construes the plain view and exigent circumstances exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. It reinforces that probable cause to suspect a container holds contraband is not sufficient to search it under the plain view doctrine; the container's appearance must make its contents a virtual certainty. The court's rejection of the exigent circumstances claim as pretextual serves as a strong reminder that the exception requires a genuine, objectively reasonable belief in an immediate danger, and courts will scrutinize police conduct for consistency with such a belief. The ruling emphasizes the judiciary's preference for warrants issued by neutral magistrates over the on-the-spot judgments of officers, particularly once a suspect is secured and the scene is under control.
