S.D.Fla.: Asking a question about a debit card during a plain view not unreasonable

The police were called to defendant’s apartment by a “scream filled 911 call” needing an ambulance. Once inside, in plain view, officers saw a debit card with a name that didn’t belong to the occupants. Asking about it did not violate plain view. Officers already had at least reasonable suspicion something was up with the card. United States v. Dabrezil, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190812 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 27, 2013):

To be sure, Officer Dolcine needed to ask one question of Ms. Cummings to determine that the card was likely being used in some type of fraud, but this does not invalidate the applicability of the plain view doctrine. Poe v. United States, 462 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming denial of defendant’s motion to suppress in warrantless entry case where the officer observed a shotgun, did not know if defendant possessed a shotgun and asked the defendant where the gun came from and defendant responded that it had come from a stolen truck and then asked defendant if he was a felon and defendant answered yes). Arizona v. Hicks does not undermine this conclusion because the Supreme Court there held that the plain view doctrine cannot justify seizure of an object if police lack probable cause to believe that an object in plain view is contraband without conducting “some further search of the object.” Asking Ms. Cummings one or two questions about the name on the debit card is not a search because mere “police questioning is neither a search nor a seizure.” United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1991)).

This entry was posted in Plain view, feel, smell. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.