Can a search warrant be used to secure and seize cocaine in the kitchen of a house where Andino was being searched?

Contrary to the district court, we conclude that simply securing Andino did not accomplish this purpose. Upon learning that the officers were looking for cocaine, Andino slammed shut the front door, ran from the door, opened and closed drawers, and turned on the kitchen faucet. It was certainly reasonable for the officers to conclude that she was attempting to wash the cocaine down the kitchen sink. The faucet was still running when Andino was seized. It was securing her person and turning off the faucet that allowed the agents to stop the destruction of evidence. See United States v. Leveringston, 397 F.3d 1112, 11161118 (8th Cir.2005) (holding that where officers heard running water and a grinding garbage disposal, warrantless entry was justified by the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence despite the fact that the suspect had already been apprehended). Therefore, the officers' entry into the kitchen after physically securing Andino was justified by continuing exigent circumstances. The search did not exceed the exigency.

It follows then that the seizure of the bag of cocaine was lawful under the plain view doctrine. The plain view doctrine is another well-recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, Ruggiero v. Krzeminski, 928 F.2d 558, 56162 (2d Cir.1991), whereby law enforcement personnel may seize an item without a warrant provided that it is immediately

[768 F.3d 100]