Immediately after a shooting incident, the police chased one of the shooters into an apartment where he was apprehended and arrested. While in the apartment, a detective noticed some antique furniture that seemed of collectors’ quality and was out of place in the squalidly furnished quarters. He moved and turned over the pieces to look for markings and insignia. He called headquarters, and was told that items with those markings and descriptions were stolen from a museum six months earlier. He seized the items and arrested another occupant, who claimed he owned the items, on charges of burglary. That suspect filed a motion to suppress based on there being a warrantless search without probable cause. The police relied on the plain view doctrine. Will the court likely suppress the evidence?
-
A
Yes, the evidence will be suppressed because the police can never search a personal residence or seize any unrelated items after entering for exigent circumstances dealing with something else.
-
B
No, the evidence was properly seized because the officer had a right to investigate it further once he had properly entered the apartment under exigent circumstances.
-
C
No, the evidence was subject to further search and seizure because it was in plain view and the officer had a reasonable suspicion that it was contraband.
-
D
Yes, the evidence must be suppressed because the plain view doctrine does not apply where the officer had no probable cause to believe that the observed item was contraband.