United States v. Meada
408 F.3d 14, 2005 WL 1208128, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 9357 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a closed container does not violate the Fourth Amendment if officers are lawfully on the premises and the container's outward appearance, such as a brand name or label, makes its contents obvious, thereby abrogating any reasonable expectation of privacy.
Facts:
- Carol Bowering had been living with her boyfriend, John Meada, in his apartment for approximately two months.
- After a violent incident, Bowering obtained a restraining order against Meada.
- Bowering informed police that Meada, who had a criminal record and no firearm license, kept guns in the apartment.
- Police officers accompanied Bowering to Meada's apartment so she could retrieve her personal belongings, including her cat and clothing.
- While Meada was not home, Bowering let the officers into the apartment and pointed out a handgun in a kitchen cabinet.
- In the bedroom, an officer saw a case labeled "GUN GUARD" standing in plain view.
- Without asking for permission, the officer opened the "GUN GUARD" case and discovered a sawed-off shotgun, a handgun, and a rifle.
Procedural Posture:
- John Meada was indicted in federal district court on charges of being a felon in possession of firearms and possession of an unregistered firearm.
- Meada filed a pre-trial motion to suppress all evidence seized from his apartment, claiming the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court held multiple suppression hearings.
- The district court granted the motion as to grenades found in an ammunition can but denied the motion as to firearms found in a kitchen cabinet and in a "GUN GUARD" case.
- Meada entered a conditional guilty plea to two counts, reserving the right to appeal the court's suppression ruling.
- The district court sentenced Meada to 108 months in prison.
- Meada, as appellant, appealed the denial of his suppression motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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 search of a closed container labeled "GUN GUARD" violate the Fourth Amendment when officers, who are lawfully inside a residence with a third party's consent, find the case in plain view?
Opinions:
Majority - Lipez, Circuit Judge
No, the warrantless search of the container did not violate the Fourth Amendment. A person lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a container if its outward appearance makes its contents obvious. Citing Arkansas v. Sanders, the court reasoned that some containers, like a gun case, by their very nature cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy. Because the "GUN GUARD" case was found in plain view by officers who were lawfully on the premises (based on Bowering's apparent authority to consent), the label betrayed its contents, effectively placing the firearms inside in plain view. Therefore, the subsequent search of the case was constitutional.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and applies the 'plain view container' doctrine, a specific exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The analysis clarifies that while consent to search a space does not automatically extend to all closed containers within it, a container's unique, descriptive nature can eliminate the owner's expectation of privacy. This holding provides law enforcement with a clear standard for searching containers that are self-identifying, particularly those suggesting the presence of contraband or weapons. It distinguishes such containers from generic ones (like the ammunition can in the same case) where the contents are not a foregone conclusion.
