Can police seize evidence from previously searched personal property without a warrant? State v. Messer Jr. Explained

In State v. Messer Jr., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether police may seize items as evidence when those items were previously discovered during administrative searches but their evidentiary value only became apparent later during an investigation.

Background and Facts

After purchasing suspicious quantities of iodine tincture, Terry Arnold Messer Jr. was arrested following a police chase. During administrative searches of his personal belongings at booking and his impounded vehicle, police discovered a two-way radio and several keys. Later that evening, Messer’s girlfriend cooperated with police and revealed the location of a methamphetamine lab on Tim Hasch’s property. When police searched the lab with Hasch’s consent, they found lab equipment and an empty box for a Radio Shack two-way radio. Realizing the evidentiary connection, officers then seized the radio and key from Messer’s previously inventoried property.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether police may seize items without a warrant when the items were lawfully discovered during administrative searches but their evidentiary value became apparent only after subsequent investigation; (2) whether the trial court properly refused a lesser-included offense jury instruction; and (3) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a third-party consent search.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Relying on United States v. Edwards, the court held that when an object lawfully came into plain view during an administrative search, later investigation establishes evidentiary value, and the item remains in police custody as inventoried property, police may retrieve that object without a warrant and use it as evidence. The court distinguished cases involving true “re-searches” of property, emphasizing this was merely a seizure of previously discovered items. Regarding the lesser-included offense instruction, the court found insufficient evidence to support conviction on the lesser offense while acquitting on the greater offense. Finally, the court rejected the ineffective assistance claim because any motion to suppress the third-party consent search would have been futile.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for police to seize items as evidence when those items were lawfully obtained during administrative searches and remain in continuous police custody. However, practitioners should note the distinction between seizing previously discovered items and conducting new searches of the same property. The ruling also demonstrates the importance of establishing a rational basis for lesser-included offense instructions and the futility doctrine in ineffective assistance claims.