U.S. v. Gray Doctrine: Plain View to be applied: 1. That the police officer has a prior justification for an intrusion.

2. He came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. 3. That it was immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them. Ponente:Miller, William E. (1973)1 Short Verson: State trooper while searching the premises of the petitioner saw two rifles leaning against the wall in an upstairs closet; he removed these, brought them downstairs to the shop and copied the serial numbers. Later he found out there were stolen. Gray is contesting the propriety of the Troopers action. Court declared it as NOT within the plain view doctrine which is an acceptable expansion of a search warrant because it did not comply with the 3rd requirement for the application of the doctrine. Facts: 1. July 1972 Kentucky State Trooper Miller, information, that grocery store was selling beer without a license. In plain clothes, Trooper Brodt brought beer in the said store. Then he left and acquired a search warrant and a warrant of arrest for Mr. Gray. 2. Gray was immediately arrested and beer was found in a small cooler in the store. No alcoholic beverages were found in the upstairs residence area but while conducting the search Brodt saw two rifles leaning against the wall in an upstairs closet; he removed these, brought them downstairs to the shop and copied the serial numbers. He then returned these to the closet. 3. Officers ran the serial nos and found out that they were stolen in Tennessee in 1972. Another search warrant was obtained. Gray, who had gotten out on bail, was again immediately arrested. The rifles could not be found, so the Troopers threatened Gray that they would arrest his common law wife. Gray then took the troopers to the locations of the rifles. 4. District Court found Gray guilty of two counts of violation of federal firearms laws. Issue: Propriety and Effect of Toopers Brodts actions. Held: The rifles should be suppressed since the warrant for its seizure was impermissibly tainted. 1. Consti, 4th amendment, right to be secure in their persons,houses, papers, and effects against USS. Plain view doctrine, under certain circumstances allows the police to seize objects not specified in the warrant. Note that the search is limited in scope so as not to be exploratory. 2. Cited: Marron v. US As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the executing officer 3. Marron fails to recognize the plain view doctrine fully explained in Coolidge v. New Hampshire: Requirements; a. Valid prior justification of intrusion b. In the course of which je inadvertently came upon evidence incriminating the accused -Doctrine supplements the prior justification ex. Warrant for another thing, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legit reason. c. The extension of the original justification is legit only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them. 4. Here, there was prior justification the search warrant for seizure of alcoholic beverages Trooper brodt inadvertently discovered the rifles. BUT It was NOT immediately apparent that it was evidence incriminating Gray in fact he even had to copy down the serial nos., return the rifles, and run the nos. before finding out that it was evidence. 5. Doctrine is a recognition of the fact that when police come across evidence immediately recognizable as incriminating, they should not be required to close their eyes to it. It would be a needless inconvenience to require them to obtain another warrant. HOWEVER this is qualified, it must be immediately apparent otherwise the search would become general in nature and prohibited by the Consti. 6. That is what precisely occurred here. The police action of Brodt in removing the rifles cannot be sanctioned under the plain view doctrine. Simply removing the rifles from the closet was already a seizure.

This is a decision of the Court of Appeals, Sixt Circuit. Not US SC.

WHEREFORE rifles should be suppressed. Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. -Czarina Dee