United States v. Sally Di Stefano and Linda Di Stefano
555 F.2d 1094, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13366 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the plain view doctrine, evidence observed by an officer who is lawfully present in a location is subject to warrantless seizure. An officer is lawfully present when accompanying an arrestee into a bedroom to maintain a watchful eye while the arrestee gets dressed.
Facts:
- Patrick Edwards, a co-conspirator, confessed to his involvement in a bank robbery and implicated Sally Di Stefano as the getaway driver.
- Based on Edwards' confession and other corroborating information, law enforcement officers went to Sally's home and arrested her without a warrant.
- At the time of her arrest, Sally was wearing a nightgown and bathrobe.
- The arresting officers requested that Sally retire to her bedroom to get dressed.
- Officer Roseanne Christie accompanied Sally into the bedroom to maintain custodial control.
- While in the bedroom, Sally opened her closet door to get clothes.
- When Sally opened the closet door, Officer Christie observed a bank money bag in plain view on the floor of the closet.
- While getting dressed, Sally also removed a quantity of currency from her robe pocket and handed it to Officer Christie.
Procedural Posture:
- Sally Di Stefano was charged with bank robbery and conspiracy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- Prior to trial, Sally filed a motion to suppress the bank bag and currency seized at the time of her arrest.
- The district court conducted a suppression hearing and denied the motion.
- Following a jury trial, Sally Di Stefano was convicted on all counts.
- Sally Di Stefano, as appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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 an officer's warrantless seizure of a bank money bag violate the Fourth Amendment when the bag was observed in plain view inside a closet after an arrestee, whom the officer had accompanied into her bedroom to get dressed post-arrest, opened the closet door?
Opinions:
Majority - Palmieri, J.
No. The warrantless seizure of the bank money bag did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it falls within the plain view exception. The court reasoned that Officer Christie's presence in the bedroom was justified; officers have a duty to permit an arrestee to get dressed and are justified in accompanying them to maintain a 'watchful eye' and ensure they do not destroy evidence or procure a weapon. Because Officer Christie was lawfully in a position to observe the bank money bag when Sally opened the closet, the seizure was permissible under the plain view doctrine, as articulated in Harris v. United States. The discovery was inadvertent, as the officer's purpose for entering the bedroom was to maintain control over the arrestee, not to search for evidence.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the plain view doctrine in the context of a search incident to arrest. It establishes that the legitimate security need to monitor an arrestee can justify an officer's presence in a private area like a bedroom, thereby placing the officer in a lawful position to observe evidence in plain view. The decision reinforces that an arrestee's privacy is diminished and that reasonable steps taken by officers to ensure safety and prevent the destruction of evidence can lead to the lawful discovery of additional incriminating items. This precedent is significant for law enforcement practices during in-home arrests, sanctioning close accompaniment of arrestees and the subsequent seizure of any inadvertently discovered evidence.
