Practice Areas

Blog

Legal News

Library

Firm News

Officer Justified in Seizing Contraband Drugs That Were in "Plain View"

A police officer responding to a domestic disturbance, who went to talk to a tenant in the home as a possible witness to the disturbance, did not violate defendant tenant’s Fourth Amendment rights when he entered defendant’s room with the landlord’s permission and observed what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette on a nightstand and cocaine residue in the corner of a clear plastic bag on a dresser, and the Court of Appeals says the drug evidence need not be suppressed.

Defendant contends that because he did not explicitly consent to the entry, the officer was not permitted to enter the room without a warrant. Defendant concludes the officer was not lawfully in a position to see the contraband and the evidence seized should have been suppressed. We disagree.

After informing the officer that defendant had witnessed the earlier domestic disturbance being investigated by the officer, the landlord told the officer that defendant rented a room in the home and that he was currently inside the home. The landlord then volunteered to take the officer into the home to see defendant. There is no evidence the officer should have been aware when he and the landlord entered the house which particular room was being rented by defendant or even that he would necessarily be found only in his room at the time. Once inside the home, the landlord led the officer purposefully through the common area to a half-open door displaying no visible indicators that it separated the common area from an area to which the landlord could not authorize access. Without pausing to knock or announce himself, the landlord led the officer through the door and into defendant’s room.

We conclude that, viewed within the context of the information available to the officer, the peremptory manner in which the landlord gained access to the room – unannounced and without knocking despite knowing defendant was present – would lead a reasonable person to believe the room beyond was under the landlord’s control as well. Hence, we find the evidence sufficient to support the finding that the officer reasonably believed the landlord had authority to consent to his entry of the room and find nothing plainly wrong with that finding. We hold the officer’s presence in the room was lawful and that, as a result, the seizure of the marijuana and cocaine discovered in the room in plain view did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.

back to top

Free Reports

Free Case Evaluation

FAQs