U.S. v. Contreras

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress drugs seized by police under circumstances, where police, while monitoring individual suspected of drug activity: (1) saw said individual enter into defendant’s garage and conduct what appeared to be drug transaction with defendant while garage door was open; and then (2) entered into defendant’s garage to effectuate arrest of defendant and monitored individual. Once defendant entered garage with its wide-open-to-any-passer-by view, he no longer had expectation of privacy, and police could enter his garage and effectuate instant warrantless seizure, where: (1) at time of viewing, officers were in place where they had legal right to be; (2) incriminating evidence was in plan view; and (3) incriminating nature of evidence was immediately apparent. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that police did not actually see drug transaction prior to entering his garage, where Dist. Ct.’s credibility findings with respect to officers’ testimonies were not so far-fetched as to defy all plausibility. Moreover, police could properly conduct brief, protective sweep of defendant’s home, which was attached to garage, to determine whether others were in home at time of defendant’s arrest, and officers’ sudden entry into defendant’s garage did not render his subsequent consent to search home involuntary.