Plain view doctrine
Encyclopedia
The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize--without a warrant
--evidence
and contraband
found in plain view during a lawful observation. This doctrine is also regularly used by TSA Federal Government Officers while screening persons and property at U.S. airports.
For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires:
In order for the officer to seize
the item, the officer must have probable cause
to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks
, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.
In Horton v. California
496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent. Previously, "inadvertent discovery" was required leading to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery."
Search warrant
A search warrant is a court order issued by a Magistrate, judge or Supreme Court Official that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a crime and to confiscate evidence if it is found....
--evidence
Evidence
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either presumed to be true, or were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth...
and contraband
Contraband
The word contraband, reported in English since 1529, from Medieval French contrebande "a smuggling," denotes any item which, relating to its nature, is illegal to be possessed or sold....
found in plain view during a lawful observation. This doctrine is also regularly used by TSA Federal Government Officers while screening persons and property at U.S. airports.
For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires:
- the officer to be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
- the officer to have a lawful right of access to the object, and
- the incriminating character of the object to be “immediately apparent.”
In order for the officer to seize
Confiscation
Confiscation, from the Latin confiscatio 'joining to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury' is a legal seizure without compensation by a government or other public authority...
the item, the officer must have probable cause
Probable cause
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the...
to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks
Arizona v. Hicks
Arizona v. Hicks, , held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view.-Facts:On April 18, 1984, a bullet was fired through the floor of Hicks' apartment, striking and injuring a man in the apartment below. The police arrived and entered Hicks'...
, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.
In Horton v. California
Horton v. California
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , was a United States Supreme Court case that developed the plain view doctrine under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court had already recognized the doctrine in Coolidge v. New Hampshire and in Arizona v. Hicks , but expanded...
496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent. Previously, "inadvertent discovery" was required leading to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery."
See also
- Exigent circumstances