Douglas County Sheriff’s deputies lacked probable cause to investigate an unlabeled pill bottle they spotted and seized from a man’s car, the Court of Appeals decided on Thursday in reversing the defendant’s drug conviction.

The three-judge panel noted the deputies had been inconsistent about their descriptions of what they saw in the car, initially describing “multiple” unlabeled containers, but eventually testifying there was only one.

“Had evidence been presented,” wrote Judge John Daniel Dailey, “that the deputies had seen, without touching or otherwise moving anything in the driver’s side pocket, multiple unlabeled pill bottles, we might have reached a different conclusion about the existence of probable cause. But we have found no such evidence.”

The panel cited numerous state and federal court decisions from across the country that determined an unlabeled pill bottle by itself is not probable cause to suspect criminal activity. Most of those cases required other unusual circumstances, such as further illegal activity, slurred speech or other suspicious conduct from the defendant while interacting with officers. In this instance, the court did not see other indications the defendant was under the influence of substances.

According to court documents, Henoke Alemayehu backed into another car in a parking lot and a bystander reported it to a nearby Douglas County Sheriff’s employee. A lieutenant approached Alemayehu, who had parked nearby in the lot with his engine running. Alemayehu got out of the vehicle and produced a paper with a fake name and number, the records said.

After discussing the matter with Alemayehu, the lieutenant called for backup and turned off the car himself. When a deputy arrived and asked for registration and insurance, Alemayehu indicated to the driver’s sun visor. The deputy opened the door to look for the documents, and another deputy nearby reportedly noticed prescription pill bottles at the bottom of the door, at least one of which was unlabeled.

The second deputy quizzed Alemayehu about the pills, and Alemayehu eventually said they belonged to a friend. The deputy then opened the bottles, used his phone to research the code on the pills and determined them to be oxycodone, a pain reliever with a high risk for addiction. There was another pill bottle found in the glove compartment during the search for paperwork.

A jury convicted Alemayehu for possessing a controlled substance and failure to report an accident. The Court of Appeals agreed there was sufficient evidence to prove Alemayehu knowingly possessed the pills, including their proximity to him in the car, of which he was the owner and sole occupant.

However, the court sided with Alemayehu that the trial court should have barred the pill bottles as evidence in the first place.

“The Fourth Amendment provides protection to the owner of a container that conceals its contents from plain view,” wrote Dailey in the May 20 opinion, “and a search of the concealed contents of a seized container must be either accompanied by a search warrant or justified by an exception to the warrant requirement.”

The exception, known as the “plain view exception,” permits officers to seize objects without a warrant if the object is obviously incriminating and police lawfully had access to it. However, lawfully seizing a container does not necessarily allow police to open it and search it.

District Court Judge Shay K. Whitaker upheld the search and seizure of the pill bottles because the officers’ training and experience reportedly provided them with reasonable suspicion that the bottles contained illegal narcotics.

But the appellate panel said reasonable suspicion was not the correct standard. The deputies needed probable cause to associate the pill bottles with criminal activity. One deputy had stated to the trial court that a missing label most likely indicates the pills belong to someone else. The other told the court, “it’s illegal to have pills in a bottle without a label on it.”

“Neither the prosecution in the trial court nor the People on appeal, however, have identified a statutory provision prohibiting the removal or alteration of labels,” Dailey countered.

The court reversed Alemayehu’s drug conviction and ordered a new trial.

The case is People v. Alemayehu.