Approach for knock and talk led to plain view of a propane tank used for anhydrous ammonia in truck in front of house

An officer was approaching defendant’s house to do a knock and talk and discovered a propane tank used for anhydrous ammonia in the back of a truck with the distinctive bluish color. The state satisfied its burden of being in a lawful vantage point and that the evidentiary value of the tank was immediately apparent. Keehn v. State, 223 S.W.3d 53 (Tex. App. — Ft. Worth 2007)*:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we hold that law enforcement officers had probable cause to believe that the propane tank–located inside the van that was parked in the driveway in front of Keehn’s home–was associated with criminal activity. See Kelly, 204 S.W.3d at 818. It was thus immediately apparent that the propane tank constituted evidence of a crime. See Walter, 28 S.W.3d at 541. Because Deputy Deford and Officer Spragins had a lawful right to be on Keehn’s driveway when they observed the tank, and because it was immediately apparent that the propane tank constituted evidence of a crime, the State met its burden of proving the reasonableness of the search and seizure by establishing the applicability of the plain view doctrine–a “specifically defined and well-established” exception to the warrant requirement. See McGee, 105 S.W.3d at 615. Accordingly, we overrule Keehn’s sole point.

Defendant was stopped for weaving, and he gave a false name and claimed no driver’s license on his person. The officer ran the name given and got no hits. He asked the driver to come back to the patrol car so they could talk about it because a differently spelled first name had a warrant out. Defendant claimed the name, and the warrant. Defendant and the occupants were more than normally nervous. Bail was $630 and the officer said he would take the defendant to get the bail. Going back to the car, he told the passengers, and a door was opened and the inside light showed the handle of a gun, which the officer seized. The officer was justified in seizing the gun. United States v. Cloud, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3211 (D. Minn. January 16, 2007).*

Under new F.R.A.P. 32.1, we are starting to get memorandum opinions from some federal appellate courts that are as cryptic or more as some New York appellate decisions that are per curiam and simply state “We find that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the arresting officers did not act unreasonably in securing the evidence that Brown sought to have suppressed,” with no statement of fact. United States v. Brown, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 934 (D.C. Cir. January 16, 2007).* Opinions like this are meaningless to everybody but the parties.