World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Plain view doctrine

Article Id: WHEBN0001968893
Reproduction Date:

Title: Plain view doctrine  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Terry stop, Exigent circumstance, Police perjury, Good-faith exception, Arizona v. Hicks
Collection: United States Fourth Amendment Case Law
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Plain view doctrine

The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize – without a warrantevidence 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:

  1. the officer to be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
  2. the officer to have a lawful right of access to the object, and
  3. the incriminating character of the object to be “immediately apparent.”

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.[1]

In Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent, a requirement that had led to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery."[2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ "Fourth Amendment: Annotation Four". Annotations to the Fourth Amendment. FindLaw. Retrieved 29 April 2013. 
  2. ^ Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136–137 (1990). See also U.S. v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240, 242 (4th Cir. 1994) (restating the Horton rules)
  3. ^ Mack, John A. (1989). "Horton v. California: The Plain View Doctrine Loses its Inadvertency". John Marshall Law Review 24: 891, 893–98. 
  4. ^ Eyer, Robin (1992). "Comment, The Plain View Doctrine After Horton v. California: Fourth Amendment Concerns and the Problem of Pretext". Dickinson Law Review 96 (3): 467, 482–83. 

See also

  1. RayMing Chang, Why the Plain View Doctrine Should Not Apply to Digital Evidence, 12 Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy 31 (Spring 2007)
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.