*1 (1964); Dollar, Corp., Land U. S. Foreign (1947); Domestic & Com- 731, 734, n. 2 Larson Corp., 682, 685, n. 3 merce S.U. Fifth law of the Circuit is now
This is such a case. if influence, not determine, rule will The announced settled. importantly, granting disposition More of this case. clear conflicts in the resolve the Cir- will enable us to
tiorari beepers. This case cuits over use whether warrantless to decide installa- set of facts permissible and, so, if whether reason- tion of such devices justification. adequate suspicion Here DEA able probable cause to warrantless installa- did not have “only panel opinion suspi- reasonable tion. The stated beeper cion existed—at the time the was installed—to be- lieve that the activity exist).” was connected with the criminal defendant (for suspect
of another
whom
cause did
(footnote omitted).
agreed,
suspicion
en banc court
but found such level of
to be
adequate.
Failure to exercise our at this time will not recurring resolve this issue or enhance the factual record. petition. Industries, No. 81-365. EA Industries, Inc. v. AMI petitioner Inc. A. C. 4th Cir. Motion of to defer consider- ation of for certiorari denied. Certiorari denied. App. No. 81-403. Texas v. Green. Ct. Crim. Tex. respondent proceed pauperis Motion of for leave to informa granted. Certiorari denied. No. 81-5009. Crouch et A. al. v. United States. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. joins,
Justice with whom Justice dissenting. question “plain” objects
This case raises the of how “plain justify view” must be in order to a warrantless search.
Specifically, it raises the whether documents that must be read before becomes evi- plain view. dent are *2 Mary Gary. July her son,
Petitioners are Crouch and On Gary 3-day furlough 3, 1978, Crouch was released a from he Institute, Goodman Correctional was an inmate. agents Drug release, Prior to his Enforcement Admin- Gary istration had information that received indicated that might engaged Mary and Crouch in the manufacture of July agents methamphetamine.1 On obtained warrant authorizing a search of the Crouch residence for “chemicals, laboratory equipment, paraphernalia, and other which are illegal methamphetamines in manufacture of in vio- 841(a)(1).” § lation of 21 U. C. The warrant was executed July on the afternoon of 6.2 The officers chemicals, laboratory equipment, empty gelatin capsules, and but no methamphetamine. During agents the course the search, in open discovered, drawer of in desk, bundle letters envelopes Gary penitentiary addressed to at the state from Mary. agents removed the letters, examined their con- they concerning tents and found that contained information methamphetamine. Subsequently, manufacture agents Gary Mary, found another batch of letters, from (the Mary’s purse purse does not seem have in her been possession). These letters contained incriminat- additional ing evidence. Both sets letters were seized as evidence.
1The information was to petitioners the effect that had ordered labora tory equipment and used to manufacture chemicals that could be methamphetamine. July prior On agents execution of the DEA submitted an addendum to the affidavit That ad the search warrant. dendum contained since concerning activities July 3. These library activities to consult public included visits to the chemical reference books photocopying and the of some information those books. The taken Magistrate Federal to have does not seem additional action to the addendum. unsuccessfully suppress the letters at moved
Petitioners attempting to manufacture Both were convicted trial. conspiring methamphetamine to manufacture dis- that substance. tribute suppress appealed the failure to the letters to Fourth Circuit. That court held for the Court of proper to have been of the letters
the seizure It found that the view doctrine. warrant in of the search remov- acted within the to search the chemicals from the the letters writings paraphernalia in the warrant. were named “clearly exposed thereby concluded, were and, incriminating.” By this, however, the let- not mean read the court did *3 incriminating nature. in order to establish ters perusal” it that the “brief of an item does Rather, held ap- immediately the less render its parent. Id,., at 933. argues
Although in his to the Solicitor General let of the for certiorari that scope “paraphernalia” term as used ters was within the rely Appeals rea did not on this warrant, Court soning. sufficiently argument I that strained find this development accept in the lower further without only Therefore, here, case, courts.3 as it comes Marron argue suppressed that the letters should be (1927), that a war 275 U. in which the Court for their articles authorizing “intoxicating liquors rant the seizure of during ledgers manufacture” and bills did not authorize seizure Id., is this case responds that the search. at 193. The Solicitor General distinguishable “paraphernalia,” from Marran ground the term that officers interpreted as used in the correctly chem include synthesize the formula Magis believe, informed icals. The officers had and had reason to trate, li at the photocopied that the chemical had warrant, therefore, to cover brary. reasonably interpreted could July 6 Obviously, argument the relevance documents. relies on reading of documents whether permissible doctrine; is the basis
is approved Appeals search. which Court disputes Regardless other requirement, Coolidge the warrant see view Hampshire, con- New (White, dissenting), ground curring it is common that the doc- only may justify the search and seizure items if the trine immediately apparent: the items is character of original justification course, “Of the extension only apparent ‘plain them; have evidence before doctrine not be view’ ploratory extend a ex- object search from one to another until some- thing incriminating emerges.” (plural- Id., at last at 466 ity opinion). Coolidge, develop
Since
this Court has not
had occasion
concept “immediately apparent.”
the limits of the
In the ab-
sence of authoritative direction from this
Court, number
Courts of
have held that a
seizure of
permissible
though
tain documents is
their incriminat-
apparent
nature is not
absent some
of their con-
tents. United States v.
Ochs,
F. 2d 1247
(loansharking
ledger
records contained on
loose
sheets
cards);
index
Pugh,
United States v.
*4
1977) (stationery containing drug weight
quota-
price
tions,
containing log
and calendar book
of
distribu-
tions);
Gargotto,
States v.
searches so authorize effect urge analogy strongly between Furthermore, the facts of case and those of Walter United the unau- Walter held unconstitutional pos- viewing by properly in their thorized of films Exposure session. which we film, contents require previous judicial pres- despite authorization exposure very cause, ence is not different from exposure written contents of the letters here—an Georgia, supported by probable Stanley cause. Cf. (Stewart, joined result). concurring JJ., questions important At the least, this case raises set the should be and I settled, plenary case consideration.