Search & seizure; U.S. Const. amend. IV; Whether clothing evidence seized without a warrant should have been suppressed; United States v. Jacobsen; The “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement; Horton v. California; United States v. Davis (4th Cir.); Sheffield v. United States (DC); State v. Rheaume (VT); Craft v. Commonwealth (VA); State v. Thompson (WI App.); People v. Torres (IL App.); State v. Cromb (OR App.); Dombrovski v. State (AK App.); Buchanan v. State (FL Dist. Ct. App.); Florida v. Jardines; Arizona v. Hicks; United States v. Dillard; Lawful access; Boone v. Spurgess; Collins v. Virginia; Whether patients have “a reasonable expectation of privacy” in hospital rooms; Jones v. State (FL); State v. Morgan (WA); Failure to seize the clothing immediately; People v. Tashbaeva (NY Crim. Ct.); United States v. Neely (5th Cir.); Conviction under 18 USC § 924(c); Whether attempted Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence; United States v. Gooch; Hill v. United States (7th Cir.); United States v. St. Hubert (11th Cir.); United States v. Taylor (4th Cir.); Aiding & abetting jury instruction; Rosemond v. United States

The court upheld the district court’s denial of defendant-Clancy’s motion to suppress the clothing evidence found in his hospital room based on the “plain view” doctrine. Clancy and a cohort tried to rob a store, and during an exchange of gunfire, an employee shot Clancy in the arm. Shortly thereafter, two men matching the store employees’ descriptions of the robbers arrived at a hospital. Police later seized Clancy’s bloody clothing from the hospital. He unsuccessfully sought to have the clothing evidence suppressed. A jury convicted him of attempted Hobbs Act robbery and using a firearm related to a crime of violence. He argued on appeal that the warrantless seizure of his clothing violated the Fourth Amendment and that the evidence should have been suppressed. However, the court noted that the police properly responded to a call from the hospital about a gunshot victim. “Waiting for the shooting victim—who may well be a suspect—to leave the hospital runs the risk of losing track of him and, worse, of allowing him to strike again.” The court held that the warrantless seizure of the clothing was supported under the plain view doctrine. The officers saw the bloodied clothing in an area that was not constitutionally protected and no actual “search” was conducted. “Clancy’s clothing was ‘out in the open’ and visible to those passing by his room. That’s where the officer saw his clothes: from ‘the hallway, looking in.’” The clothing matched the radio description of the clothing worn by the store robbers, including a black ski mask. The court did not decide whether, as Clancy argued, a patient has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hospital room because even if such an expectation was established, the police seized the clothing after he had been airlifted away. The court rejected his claim that the plain view doctrine did not apply because the clothing was not immediately seized upon discovery. In addition, it rejected his claim that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” for purposes of a conviction under § 924(c), finding no clear error. It noted that at least one circuit has found it so, and that a completed Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence. It also rejected his challenge to the district court’s aiding and abetting jury instruction. Affirmed.