FBI agents viewed Leggs film reels without a warrant; evidence found inadmissible

Brad Lawrence, presenter, described a 1975 case in which private employees at the Leggs Company discovered 871 reels of 8 mm film in a customer’s package and alerted the FBI. Lawrence said an FBI agent took possession of the reels, arranged a projector and viewed some of the films before securing a search warrant.

According to Lawrence, the Supreme Court found the defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the films but concluded that the government went beyond what the private employees had done when its agents projected and watched the film. "The agents went further than the private parties did when they located a projector and visually viewed the images contained on film," Lawrence said. Evidence obtained after those views was suppressed because agents had time to obtain a warrant and none of the usual exceptions to the warrant requirement applied.

Lawrence said the Court recognized that the labels and outside markings on the boxes gave agents probable cause to seek a warrant, but probable cause alone did not justify the warrantless viewing. "They clearly had probable cause to secure a search warrant based on the labels on the boxes," he said, "and they had days in which to secure the warrant before viewing the films." The suppression, Lawrence explained, turned on the difference between what private parties had done (examining the exterior) and what government agents did (projecting and viewing the film without judicial authorization).

The presenter listed lawful bases that can permit officers to inspect container contents — officer safety, inventorying under a valid agency policy, inspection authority, consent from an interested party, or a search warrant — and emphasized none applied in this incident. He framed the agents’ decision to view the films without a warrant as an unnecessary investigative step that proved costly at trial.

The account concludes with Lawrence’s assessment that, although the labels suggested contraband, the only lawful way to confirm the films’ content for trial purposes would have been to secure a warrant before viewing. "Being in lawful possession of a container is not enough for police officers to look inside," he said. "They must be in lawful possession plus have another reason ... or they have a search warrant." The case, as described, ended with suppression of evidence obtained after the warrantless viewing.