The 911 operator received a frantic call in which the caller…
The 911 operator received a frantic call in which the caller said he had heard a gunshot and felt a severe pain in his thigh. He discovered that he was bleeding. Within minutes, officers arrived at the scene and began to investigate, while the victim was being treated by EMT’s. It was discovered that a bullet had entered the victim’s apartment floor from the down stairs apartment striking the victim in the leg. Officers immediately went to the downstairs apartment and entered without a search warrant. They found a suspect as well as a pistol and and fired shell casing in plain view inside the apartment. The suspect was taken into custody. While in the apartment Officer James observed 7 LED televisions in the living room area. Suspecting they were stolen, he moved each television so he could get a digital photo of the serial numbers. His suspicion turned out to be correct. In addition to other charges, the suspect was charged with possession of stolen property. At his trial, the state argued exigent circumstances allowed the officers to legally enter the suspect’s apartment and that the televisions were in plain view, so the search warrant requirement did not apply. Does the plain view doctrine apply to the seizure of the televisions or were they seized as a result of an illegal search? What case best addresses this issue?