In what circumstances will the police be able to search a briefcase containing a gun in plain sight?

Our analogy might be compared to the plain view doctrine wherein the observation of things in plain sight does not amount to a search. (Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 626, 634, 108 Cal.Rptr. 585, 511 P.2d 33.) It is difficult to discern a logical difference between taking notice of some object in plain view and in being made aware of the existence of an object by someone describing said object under believable and trustworthy conditions. Had the gun been in plain view, the officers could have confiscated it; instead Haugland, in admitting to a crime, told them there was a gun in the briefcase.

In any event, this case would be subject to the "exigent circumstances" exception set forth in People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410, 153 Cal.Rptr. 224, 591 P.2d 514, and People v. Flores (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 221, 233, 160 Cal.Rptr. 839.

Page 242