United States v. Prather, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140147

Background

On June 19, 2015, a magistrate judge issued a search warrant for Prather’s residence authorizing seizure only of a specific 1-551 stamp.
Law enforcement executed the warrant while Prather was absent; agents searched rooms and reached the master bedroom walk-in closet.
Agent Stewart removed an Xbox box from a closet shelf, opened it, and immediately observed a Smith & Wesson pistol inside; he then unloaded and "cleared" the firearm per his training.
While clearing the gun, Stewart observed a hole in the frame where a serial-number plate normally sits and, after inspecting the gun further, concluded the serial number was obliterated; only that firearm was seized.
Prather moved to suppress the gun as beyond the scope of the warrant; the government defended the seizure under the plain-view/ officer-safety exception and, alternatively, inevitable discovery.
The court found no exigency justified picking up the gun (no civilians present and no particular danger shown), and the government failed to prove inevitable discovery; it granted suppression.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the firearm seizure exceeded the warrant because it was not described	Prather: the gun was not listed in the warrant; seizure followed manipulation beyond lawful plain view	Government: gun was properly secured for officer safety and became contraband in plain view once cleared	Court: Seizure invalid — no exigency justified picking up the gun, so plain-view exception did not apply; suppression granted
Whether officer safety justified picking up and manipulating the firearm without a warrant	Prather: no specific, articulable danger present (only officers on scene; modern gun with safeties)	Government: routine safety practice to clear/unload discovered firearms to protect officers	Court: Not reasonable here — absence of civilians or special danger means no exigent-circumstance justification
Whether the gun’s incriminating nature was immediately apparent	Prather: incriminating nature was not visible until officer manipulated the gun	Government: after clearing, hole where serial plate belonged made it immediately apparent	Court: Because picking up the gun was not justified, the subsequent observation cannot rely on plain-view; thus plain-view fails (court also notes that had picking up been justified, the hole would support probable cause)
Whether inevitable discovery would admit the firearm	Prather: government has not shown active alternative investigation or that a firearm warrant would have been obtained	Government: officers had information suggesting an un-serialized gun and could have obtained a firearm warrant	Court: Government failed to prove by preponderance that lawful means would inevitably have discovered the gun or that an alternative line of investigation was active

Key Cases Cited

Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness and exigency/contextual evaluation)
Malachesen v. United States, 597 F.2d 1232 (8th Cir. 1979) (temporary seizure/unloading of a loaded gun during a search justified by officer safety)
Arcobasso v. United States, 882 F.2d 1304 (8th Cir. 1989) (seizure/unloading of weapons to assure safety during entry)
United States v. Robinson, 756 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1985) (upholding unloading and retention of firearm encountered during search)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-view/plain-feel doctrine limits: incriminating nature must be immediately apparent)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine rationale)
United States v. Garner, 907 F.2d 60 (8th Cir. 1990) (probable cause standard for plain-view seizure: "immediately apparent" means probable cause to associate property with crime)