Albert Alexander sued eight Lafayette police officers after they seized electronics and appliances from his home during a 2011 firearms search, alleging the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by seizing items not described in their warrant. The officers had obtained a warrant to search Alexander's residence for firearms based on tips from his granddaughter Sharlette Alexander and her girlfriend Dashawna Morrison, who reported that Alexander—a convicted felon—kept a shotgun in the house and had bragged about stealing electronics without getting caught.
The Fifth Circuit panel unanimously rejected Alexander's claim, holding that the seizure was justified under the plain view doctrine. As Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement wrote for the court, "Based on the tips the officers received, their observations on the scene, and their prior experience, the officers had probable cause to believe that the items were stolen, so they constitutionally seized them under the plain view doctrine."
The court held that officers had probable cause before entering because they had received specific tips about stolen electronics, and their observations of items "stored in their original, unopened packaging, wrapped in plastic, covered with pillowcases, or placed on top of blankets" corroborated those reports. Officer Strong testified that the manner of storage was "indicative of . . . how people house stolen property."
During the search, Officer Strong called Morrison to confirm the identity of pellet rifles they found, and "Morrison reaffirmed what she had told Officer Strong during their interview: Alexander had confided in her that the items in the residence were stolen."
Alexander was charged with six counts of possession of stolen property and detained for over two years. By trial in January 2014, only two counts remained, and a jury found him not guilty on both. The items seized during the first search remained in police evidence until the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government sold them at auction in 2016.
Because the court held there was no Fourth Amendment violation, it did not reach the second prong of qualified immunity analysis regarding whether the right was clearly established.