United States v. Delva, 13 F. Supp. 3d 269

On June 4, 2013, FBI and NYPD officers executed an arrest warrant at a two-bedroom Bronx apartment to apprehend Gregory Accilien for a violent robbery and kidnapping; officers reasonably believed Accilien was present and dangerous.
Officers entered after knocking and announcing; Accilien and others were ordered to the floor; David Delva was observed in the second bedroom and was placed on the ground and handcuffed.
During a limited protective sweep of the bedroom, officers observed a closet with a plastic bag of suspected narcotics and a firearm in a sneaker in plain view; they secured those items.
While in the bedroom, officers also saw two cell phones and a letter on a cabinet/TV stand in plain view; one phone later was identified as Delva’s.
Officers obtained a warrant before searching the contents of the phones. Delva moved to suppress his cell phone; the court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of entry and sweep	Entry and bedroom sweep exceeded warrant scope; officers lacked right to enter/inspect bedrooms	Officers lawfully executed an arrest warrant for Accilien and reasonably conducted a protective sweep for officer safety	Entry and sweep lawful (court previously found officers’ entry and bedroom sweep lawful)
Plain view seizure of gun and drugs	Seizures were improper searches	Items were observed in plain view during a lawful sweep and were immediately identifiable as contraband	Gun and drugs were in plain view and lawfully seized (previous ruling)
Seizure of cell phones in bedroom	Cell phone seizure was unlawful: phone not contraband and seizure without consent/warrant	Phone was in plain view during lawful sweep; officers had probable cause to believe phones were evidence because phones were used in the charged crimes and a letter linked the bedroom to suspects	Cell phones were in plain view and lawfully seized under plain-view/probable-cause rationale
Probable cause to seize phone belonging to Delva	Phone belonging to Delva not inherently incriminating; no immediate nexus to crime	Totality of circumstances (narcotics/gun found near, Accilien identified closet, letter linking occupant to crime, known use of phones in offense) established probable cause to seize phone	Probable cause existed to seize the phone; seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment

United States v. Lauter, 57 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 1995) (arrest-warrant entry into a suspect’s residence lawful when officers reasonably believe suspect is present)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (officers generally may not enter a home to effectuate an arrest absent an arrest warrant or exigent circumstances)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (limits and justifications for stops and protective measures for officer safety)
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (permissible protective sweeps incident to arrest in a home)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-view/plain-feel principles for seizure of evidence)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (elements of the plain-view doctrine)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (limits on warrantless searches and plain-view analysis)
Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (plain-view seizure of evidence during lawful entry)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (probable cause standard for seizing objects perceived as incriminating in plain view)
United States v. Scopo, 19 F.3d 777 (2d Cir. 1994) (plain-view seizure principles)
United States v. Kiyuyung, 171 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (quick, limited security checks during lawful entry may be reasonable)
United States v. Ochs, 595 F.2d 1247 (2d Cir. 1979) (context can render ordinary objects evidentiary and subject to seizure)
United States v. Barrios-Moriera, 872 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1989) (probable cause evaluated under the totality of the circumstances)