US V.

GRAY William Miller, Circuit Judge August 7, 1973 RATIO DECIDENDI: Under the plain view doctrine, unless immediatel apparent!, the police o""icers cannot e#tend to a general e#plorator search until something incriminating at last emerges$ QUICK FACTS: Upon receipt o" in"ormation that an operator o" a small grocer store was selling %eer without a license, the &tate 'rooper, under a search warrant and a warrant o" arrest, conducted a search which directed the sei(ure o" an into#icating li)uors, apparatus "or manu"acturing into#icating li)uors or materials used in the manu"acture o" into#icating li)uors!$ 'he de"endant was assailing the propriet o" the &tate 'rooper*s action since instead o" li)uors, the "ound ri"les, and su%se)uentl indicted him o" violation o" "ederal "irearms laws$ FACTS: +entuc, &tate 'rooper Miller received in"ormation that -re , an operator o" a small grocer store, was selling %eer without a license$ 'rooper .rodt, in plain clothes, went to the store and purchased "ive cans o" %eer$ /e then le"t the store to procure search warrant "or -ra *s arrest$ A"ter o%taining the two warrants, 'roopers Miller and .rodt returned to the store to arrest -ra and e#ecute the search warrant which directed the sei(ure o" an into#icating li)uors, apparatus "or manu"acturing into#icating li)uors or materials used in the manu"acture o" into#icating li)uors!$ 0o alcoholic %everages were "ound in the upper residence area %ut while 'rooper .rodt was conducting his search, he noticed two ri"les in the closet$ /e too, them down and copied down the serial num%ers o" the weapons$ 'he o""icers learned that the "irearms were stolen$ 'rooper .rodt then "iled a""idavits to o%tain a search warrant "or the sei(ure o" the ri"les and a warrant "or -ra *s arrest$ -ra was arrested %ut the ri"les were not located$ 'hreatened that his common law wi"e will %e arrested, -ra surrendered the ri"les$ 1e"endant was convicted in the U& 1istrict Court "or violation o" "ederal "irearms laws$ ISSUES: W20 the search conducted % the &tate 'roopers was proper under the 3ourth Amendment DECISION: 4eversed and remanded with directions$ HELD: 'he 3ourth Amendment re)uires that warrants particularl descri%e the things to %e sei(ed$ 'his re)uirement ma,es general searches under them impossi%le and prevents the sei(ure o" one thing under a warrant descri%ing another$ 'he sei(ure o" the ri"les cannot %e 5usti"ied$ 2nl the "irst element was present$ 'he police o""icer had a prior 5usti"ication "or an intrusion$ 1uring the search, the o""icers came inadvertentl across a piece o" evidence incriminating the accused$ 'he e#tension o" the original 5usti"ication is legitimate onl where it is immediatel apparent to the police that the have evidence %e"ore them$ 2""icer .rodt inadvertentl discovered the ri"les in the upstairs closet while searching "or

alcoholic %everages %ut it was not immediatel apparent that the ri"les were evidence incriminating the accused$'o allow the police to sei(e o%5ects, unincriminating at the time o" the sei(ure, woud not comport with the plain view doctrine$ 'he "act that the o""icer dd not ta,e the ri"les with him a"ter conducting the search does not ma,e his actions an less a sei(ure$ 4emoving the ri"les was a sei(ure as was the cop ing down o" the serial num%ers$ 4i"les should have %een suppresed since the second warrant was tainted % 2""icer .rodt*s initial sei(ure o" the weapons$