United States v. Michael Frank Miller
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 21921, 769 F.2d 554 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawful plain view seizure of a container does not justify a subsequent warrantless search of its contents unless the container's outward appearance makes its illicit contents obvious to an observer.
Facts:
- On June 4, 1983, Michael Frank Miller was flying from Florida to California with a layover in Atlanta.
- At the Atlanta airport, one of Miller's suitcases accidentally opened on a baggage conveyor belt.
- A clear plastic bag, partially wrapped in masking tape, fell from the suitcase, was punctured, and spilled white powder.
- Airline employees gave the bag to airport police, who summoned DEA Agent Paul Markonni.
- Agent Markonni conducted a field test on the spilled white powder, and the result was negative for cocaine.
- Markonni then squeezed the bag, felt a solid object, poked his finger into the puncture hole, and used a knife to enlarge it.
- He removed an opaque, fiberglass inner container, smelled a chloride odor he associated with cocaine, and cut it open.
- Inside the fiberglass container, Markonni discovered a crystalline white powder which a field test identified as cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Frank Miller was charged in U.S. District Court with possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Miller filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence seized by Agent Markonni.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- Miller entered a conditional guilty plea under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), preserving his right to appeal the court's evidentiary ruling.
- Miller, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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, opaque container, after its lawful seizure under the plain view doctrine, violate the Fourth Amendment when the container's contents are not immediately apparent from its outward appearance?
Opinions:
Majority - Nelson, J.
Yes, the warrantless search of the container violated the Fourth Amendment. Although the initial seizure of the plastic bag was permissible under the plain view doctrine, a lawful seizure does not authorize a subsequent warrantless search. Agent Markonni's actions of poking, cutting, and opening the containers constituted a search that went beyond the minimal intrusion allowed for a seizure. The 'single-purpose container' exception does not apply because the bag did not, by its outward appearance, announce its contents to an observer, especially after the initial field test on the visible powder was negative. This exception cannot be extended based on an officer's expertise or the suspicious circumstances of discovery, as privacy expectations are based on general social norms, not the subjective beliefs of law enforcement.
Concurring - Hug, J.
Yes, the search was unconstitutional. While the initial seizure of the bag and testing of the spilled powder were proper, opening the fiberglass container was a clear, unjustifiable search. Once the initial test of the white powder came back negative, any justification for a further warrantless search ceased to exist. The single-purpose container exception requires a 'virtual certainty' that the contents are contraband, a standard not met here. Suspicion and probable cause are sufficient to obtain a search warrant but do not provide a basis for conducting a warrantless search of an opaque container.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between a Fourth Amendment seizure and a search, clarifying that the justification for one does not automatically extend to the other. It narrowly interprets the 'single-purpose container' exception, holding that the contents must be obvious from the container's appearance based on general social norms, not just an officer's expertise or the context of the discovery. This precedent limits law enforcement's ability to conduct warrantless searches of containers found in plain view, thereby protecting individuals' privacy interests in closed, opaque containers even when there is probable cause to seize them.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Michael Frank Miller