KS: Recording VINs during administrative search was reasonable; stolen cars found

A fire code inspector had an administrative warrant to inspect airplane hangers and found three vehicles parked inside. The inspector felt that something was awry, so he wrote down two of the VIN numbers which were visible from outside. As to the third, the VIN was obstructed, so the license plate number was written down. Later, it was determined that two of the vehicles were stolen. Defendant had an expectation of privacy in the hanger as the renter. Recording the VIN during an otherwise lawful search was not an unreasonable seizure under Hicks and Class. State v. McCammon, 250 P.3d 838 (Kan. App. 2011):

First, we must determine whether the officer’s observation of the VINs through the windshields of two vehicles was a search implicating the Fourth Amendment. We hold that it was not. The mere observation of anything that comes into view during an otherwise lawful search is not an independent search implicating the Fourth Amendment because it produces no additional invasion of privacy interests beyond those already jeopardized. See Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325, 107 S. Ct. 1149, 94 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1987); Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771, 103 S. Ct. 3319, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1003 (1983). As noted by the Court in Hicks, if the officer had taken any action beyond mere observation—even a trivial movement of an item by only a few inches—we would be compelled to conclude that an independent search occurred implicating the Fourth Amendment. 480 U.S. at 325.

Next, we must determine whether the officer’s recordation of the VINs was a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Again, we hold it was not. The recordation of the VINs did not meaningfully interfere with any possessory interest in the vehicles and therefore did not amount to a seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment. See Hicks, 480 U.S. at 324; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 469, 105 S. Ct. 2778, 86 L. Ed. 2d 370 (1985). The officer was able to record these numbers without any intrusion whatsoever; in fact, she was unable to record a VIN from a third vehicle because it was obstructed, so she opted against further action to observe and record that VIN. We cannot conclude that the recordation of the VINs was a seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment. …

Finally, we note as an alternative analysis that the United States Supreme Court has made clear that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a VIN. [quoting New York v. Class.]