Click on the case titles to link to the full case decision.
United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559 (1927)-Plain view is not affected by the use of spot lights and field glasses (binoculars).
Harris v. US, 390 U.S. 234 (1968)-As long as a police officer has a lawful right to be in the position to have a particular view, any object that falls within that view may be subject to seizure and may be introduced into evidence.
Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1(1982)-A police officer can follow an arrested person into his residence without permission or "exigent circumstances". The officer can seize any contraband found in plain view upon entering the residence.
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983)-This case addressed "plain view" issues with the following :
A police officer does not have to immediately "know" that an item found in plain view is contraband or evidence.
"The seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 587 .
"Probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard, merely requiring that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false."
The use of a flashlight does not violate the "plain view" doctrine.
A police officer is allowed to contort or otherwise place himself in an unusual position as long as he is in a place where he has a right to be without violating the "plain view."
United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (1985)-The warrantless search of the packages based on probable cause, developed in part by smelling the odor of marijuana, was not unreasonable merely because it occurred three days after the packages were unloaded from the trucks.
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207(1986)-The Fourth Amendment simply does not require police traveling in the public airways at 1000 feet in a fixed wing aircraft to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227(1986)-The use of vision enhancement equipment accessible to the public to examine open fields from a plane is permissible.
New York v. Class, 475 US 106 (1986)-A person does not have a privacy interest in the V.I.N. (vehicle identification number). Class was stopped on traffic for speeding and a cracked windshield. The officer wanted to inspect the V.I.N. located on the dash. The officer had to enter the vehicle and move items covering the V.I.N. When he entered the vehicle he found a gun. The court ruled that the steps to inspect the V.I.N. was reasonable and the gun was legitimately found in plain view.
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321(1987)-On a warrantless entry into a residence, a police officer cannot, based on reasonable suspicion, move a stereo to find and check the serial number to see if the stereo is stolen. Moving the stereo made the action a search. Probable Cause is required to invoke the "plain view" doctrine.
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294(1987)-The warrantless naked-eye observation of an area protected by the Fourth Amendment from an open field is not unconstitutional.
Florida v. Riley, 488 US 445 (1989)-Viewing contraband located on private property from a helicopter flying at 400ft. falls within the "plain view" doctrine and is not a search. The helicopter must be operated at a level that the general public can operate.
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)-Before an officer can seize items found in plain view, a two-pronged test must be met. 1) The incriminating nature of the item in plain view must be immediately apparent. 2) The officer must be lawfully located in a position from which he or she can plainly see the item and have lawful access to it. It is possible for an officer to be in a legal place to see the item, but not be able to seize it without a warrant. For example: The officer walks by an apartment and sees through a window marijuana on the table inside. The officer will either have to get consent or a warrant to enter the residence to seize the marijuana.
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)-During a Terry frisk, an officer detects something which he immediately knows is not a weapon, but also immediately knows, based on training a experience, is contraband. It can be seized, provided the officer immediately knows it is contraband without any further manipulation or inspection.
Boatright v. State, 483 S.E.2nd 659(Georgia)(1997)(no link)-Officers stopped Boatright's car on traffic. During the stop, he was pat searched. The officer felt in his pocket "some type of plastic". Boatright lied and said that the item was keys. The officer removed the item and discovered that it was a bag of marijuana. Boatright was arrested. The evidence was excluded because the officer exceeded the scope of the plain-feel doctrine. The officer must know immediately that the item was contraband.
US v. Carter, 03a0017p.06 (6th Cir.)(2003)-Officers were investigating drug violations at a motel. They knocked on the door and the occupant opened. The officers smelled the odor of burned marijuana and saw a "blunt" (hollowed out cigar filled with marijuana) in plain view. The officers had the exigent circumstance of the possible rapid destruction of evidence. They were justified in entering the motel without a warrant and seize the "blunt".