TSA having seen cash, it was still legally in \u201cplain view\u201d even though it had been returned to defendant in the airport and was zipped up in his bag. United States v. Rosales, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143264 (D. Minn. December 13, 2011):<\/p>\n
As noted, the Court has already held that the TSA agent\u2019s search of Rosales\u2019s bag was lawful. Thus, the TSA agent was lawfully in a position to see the cash. As Rosales points out, though, the TSA agent did not seize the cash. Instead, the TSA agent returned Rosales\u2019s property to him and let him go on his way. Rosales\u2019s cash was later seized by airport police (not the TSA) only after Rosales voluntarily agreed to return to the screening area and speak with airport police officers (who had been told by the TSA that Rosales was carrying a large amount of cash, see Docket No. 329 at 4-5, 65-66, 68).<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the Court finds that the seizure was proper under the plain-view doctrine. The Supreme Court has upheld a search under analogous circumstances, explaining that \u201cabsent a substantial likelihood that the contents have been changed, there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of a container previously opened under lawful authority.\u201d Illinois v. Andreas<\/a>, 463 U.S. 765, 773, 103 S. Ct. 3319, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1003 (1983); see also United States v. $557,933.89, More or Less, in U.S. Funds<\/a>, 287 F.3d 66, 87-88 (2d Cir. 2002) (Sotomayor, J.) (holding that a police officer\u2019s opening of a briefcase that had just been searched by airport security did not constitute an additional \u201csearch\u201d within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment); United States v. $145,850 U.S. Currency, No. 10-71, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77686, 2010 WL 3063814, at *6 n.2 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2010) (\u201cThat Arrington zipped up his suitcase and began to exit the airport is immaterial to whether the plain view justification for seizure continued to apply.\u201d). In other words, after a container has been lawfully searched and its contents lawfully viewed in the course of that search, those contents are deemed to remain in plain view (even if they are put back in the container and carried off) up until the point that it becomes substantially likely that the contents of the container have changed. Cf. Andreas, 463 U.S. at 771-72 (\u201conce a container has been found to a certainty to contain illicit drugs, the contraband becomes like objects physically within the plain view of the police, and the claim to privacy is lost\u201d (footnote omitted)).<\/p>\n
In this case, there is no substantial likelihood that the contents of Rosales\u2019s bag changed between the time that the TSA agent allowed Rosales to leave the screening area and the time that airport police seized the cash. Although the record does not definitively establish the amount of time that passed between Rosales leaving and returning to the screening area, it appears to have been a matter of minutes; moreover, Rosales was nearby and apparently visible to TSA agents the entire time. See Docket No. 329 at 42, 48-49, 53-55; cf. Andreas, 463 U.S. at 767-68, 772-73 (holding that there was no substantial likelihood that the contents of a shipping container changed during the 30 to 45 minutes that it was in an apartment and out of the officers\u2019 sight). In addition, given that Rosales was at the airport the entire time, it is reasonable to believe that he maintained his possessions in the bag in which he had packed them. Without any substantial likelihood that the contents of Rosales\u2019s bag changed, therefore, the cash is treated as though it remained in plain view \u2014 as though Rosales had held it in an outstretched hand at all times, including while talking with airport police.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading