Coin Show Robberies In the Supreme Court
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,560 ✭✭✭✭✭
Read this case today for a class, and found the background rather interesting. It's a 4th Amendment case through and through, but it's always interesting to see coins mentioned in a SCOTUS case.
Horton v. California
1990
7-2 Decision
"Petitioner was convicted of the armed robbery of Erwin Wallaker, the treasurer of the San Jose Coin Club. When Wallaker returned to his home after the Club's annual show, he entered his garage and was accosted by two masked men, one armed with a machine gun and the other with an electrical shocking device, sometimes referred to as a "stun gun." The two men shocked Wallaker, bound and handcuffed him, and robbed him of jewelry and cash. During the encounter sufficient conversation took place to enable Wallaker subsequently to identify petitioner's distinctive voice. His identification was partially corroborated by a witness who saw the robbers leaving the scene and by evidence that petitioner had attended the coin show.
Sergeant LaRault, an experienced police officer, investigated the crime and determined that there was probable cause to search petitioner's home for the proceeds of the robbery and for the weapons used by the robbers. His affidavit for a search warrant referred to police reports that described the weapons as well as the proceeds, but the warrant issued by the Magistrate only authorized a search for the proceeds, including three specifically described rings.
Pursuant to the warrant, LaRault searched petitioner's residence, but he did not find the stolen property. During the course of the search, however, he discovered the weapons in plain view and seized them. Specifically, he seized an Uzi machine gun, a .38-caliber revolver, two stun guns, a handcuff key, a San Jose Coin Club advertising brochure, and a few items of clothing identified by the victim.1 LaRault testified that while he was searching for the rings, he also was interested in finding other evidence connecting petitioner to the robbery. Thus, the seized evidence was not discovered "inadvertently."
Court ultimately ruled the search and seizure of the weapons was lawful pursuant to the plain view doctrine, and the conviction stood.
Coin Photographer.
Comments
Interesting case. Thanks for posting.
Interesting story, sad that they knew each other, apparently quite well if he recognized his voice!
Successful BST transactions- Bfjohnson, Collectorcoins, 1peter223, Shrub68, Byers, Greencopper, Coinlieutenant, Coinhunter4, SurfinxHI, ProfLiz
A machine gun?
That right there will put you in the can for 20 years.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
Not necessarily. If the criminal spoke enough during the robbery, it's possible for the victim to listen to voice samples as a means of ID, similar to a lineup or a sketch, but not visual. It doesn't specifically say that the victim named the criminal by virtue of already knowing his voice.
Standard practice is to stop the search and apply for another warrant specifically for the other items rather than gamble that the court will be okay with it.
You can seize items found in a place that could reasonably have kept the rings. Rings are obviously pretty small and likely opened up the entire property to a search, but best practice is to pause and apply for another warrant.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
In this case it is noted the officer was "experienced". So maybe a judge would accept the officers actions as legitimate. Or conversely a judge could assume an experienced officer should know the rules.
The Supreme Court did accept these actions as legitimate, and this is generally case law for what officers classify as "plain view" exceptions to the 4th Amendment.
Coin Photographer.
Guess I better be extra vigilant the next time I attend a coin show in San Jose. Tough crowd in the South Bay.
Giving reliable testimony goes a long way but in this case some more paperwork would’ve kept him out of the witness chair all the way to Supreme Court.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
you better be careful with title fraud real estate theft since the property involved will be in plain view