In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 16‐4057
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff‐Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY J. MINNEY,
Defendant‐Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:15‐cr‐00063 — Larry J. McKinney, Judge.
____________________
ARGUED MAY 16, 2017 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2017
____________________
Before BAUER, FLAUM, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
KANNE, Circuit Judge. Officers executed a search warrant
at Anthony Minney’s apartment. The search warrant listed
the items to be seized: a Panasonic television, a Sony televi‐
sion, a Nintendo Wii, an Xbox 360, and 10 Xbox video
games. While searching Minney’s bedroom, Detective Wil‐
liam Vasquez found ammunition in the bedside table. When
the officers questioned Minney, he admitted that he was on
2 No. 16‐4057
parole for dealing cocaine. Officers then arrested Minney for
being a felon in possession of ammunition.
As the search for the electronic devices resumed, Detec‐
tive Vazquez found multiple guns in Minney’s bedroom: one
in the same drawer as the ammunition, one under the mat‐
tress, and two on a shelf in the closet. Officers recovered
most of the electronics, except for one television and the lap‐
top. Minney produced the laptop upon request, but officers
never found the second television.
The government charged Minney with three counts of
being a felon in possession of a gun. When the district court
denied his motion to suppress the guns, Minney pled guilty
to one count in return for the government dismissing the
other two counts. Minney reserved his right to appeal the
district court’s suppression ruling. On appeal, Minney ar‐
gues that the guns should be suppressed because the officers
exceeded the scope of the search warrant. We disagree.
When executing a search warrant that specifically lists
the items to be seized, officers are entitled to search any‐
where those items are likely to be discovered. United States v.
Mann, 592 F.3d 779, 782–83 (7th Cir. 2010). Officers may seize
the items named in the search warrant and any evidence that
falls under the plain‐view doctrine. Russell v. Harms, 397 F.3d
458, 465 (7th Cir. 2005). The plain‐view doctrine applies if the
officer is lawfully present, the item is in plain view, and the
item is immediately incriminating. Id.
The plain‐view doctrine controls here. Detective Vazquez
was lawfully searching Minney’s bedroom under the search
warrant, and the electronic devices could have reasonably
been found in any of the places where Detective Vazquez
No. 16‐4057 3
found Minney’s guns; the guns were in plain view when De‐
tective Vazquez searched in those places; and the guns were
immediately incriminating because Minney admitted that he
was out on parole for dealing cocaine, a felony.
Minney’s only argument to the contrary is that the offic‐
ers found the electronic devices listed in the search warrant
immediately and then continued searching for other incrim‐
inating evidence. Of course, it would be unreasonable under
the Fourth Amendment for officers to find everything listed
in a search warrant and then to keep searching. But that did
not happen here. The officers never found the second televi‐
sion. So while Minney’s legal argument is correct, it does not
apply here.
For those reasons, the district court’s denial of Minney’s
motion to suppress is AFFIRMED.