Exception: Plain View Doctrine

Question 1

Plain View Doctrine REQUIREMENTS

Answer 1

o Item must be in plain view – observe from lawful vantage point
o Officer must be in a place she has a right to be/ physical access to object
o Incriminating nature of item must be immediately apparent

Question 2

Horton v. California (1990)

Answer 2

RULE: Inadvertence is not a necessary condition to plain view seizures. As long as a PO had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came across a piece of evidence AND so long as the scope of the search is not enlarged in the slightest, it is constitutional

Question 3

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

Answer 3

• HOLDING: movement of the equipment was search; Doesn’t matter how inconsequential the movement was – “a search is a search”
• RULE: Only when a police officer has probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, could they invoke the plain view doctrine, this is because searches and seizures involving a dwelling require probable cause

• RULE: Nature of item as contraband must be immediately apparent just looking at it
o If cop needs to do more to determine incriminating character of item (e.g. open it, shake it, squeeze it, turn it over, test it) seizure can’t be justified