Also known as: plain-view exception · plain view doctrine · plain view rule
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A doctrine permitting officers who are lawfully present to seize an item without a warrant when its incriminating character is immediately apparent. The officer must possess probable cause to believe the item is contraband or evidence of a crime. Manipulation of an object to reveal information such as a serial number constitutes a separate search requiring its own justification.
During execution of a warrant for billing records, Detective Mason sees an expensive ultrasound probe on an open shelf in Lucas's clinic. Mason lifts and rotates the probe to read the serial number etched on the back, then seizes it after confirming it matches a unit reported stolen from a nearby hospital. Lucas moves to suppress the probe and the serial-number evidence.
After witnessing Leo assault a cameraman and flee with a camera bag, officers follow him into Dana's loft without a warrant. While lawfully inside they observe a stolen camera and handgun lying openly on a table and seize them. Dana moves to suppress the items as products of an unlawful search.
Officers enter a home with consent and observe clothing matching the description of items taken from a murder victim lying openly on the floor. They seize the clothing without a warrant and later charge the homeowner. The homeowner moves to suppress the clothing under the Fourth Amendment.
In January 1964, fourteen-year-old Pamela Mason disappeared from her home in Manchester, New Hampshire, during a heavy snowstorm after receiving a telephone call about a babysitting job. Her body was discovered eight days later beside a major highway, prompting a massive police investigation. On January 28, officers visited Edward Coolidge at his home after learning he had been absent on the night of the disappearance. Coolidge produced three guns for inspection and agreed to take a lie-detector test. On February 2, while Coolidge was at the police station undergoing the test, two plainclothes officers arrived at his house and spoke with his wife. Mrs. Coolidge provided four guns belonging to her husband and some clothing she believed he might have worn on the night in question. Coolidge was held overnight on an unrelated charge but released the next day. Over the following two and a half weeks, the State accumulated evidence implicating Coolidge. On February 19, the results of the investigation were presented at a meeting between the police officers working on the case and the State Attorney General, who had personally taken charge of all police activities relating to the murder, and was later to serve as chief prosecutor at the trial. Coolidge was arrested at his home that day. His 1951 Pontiac automobile parked in the driveway was seized and towed to the police station two and a half hours later. The Pontiac was searched and vacuumed on February 21, again in January 1965, and a third time in April 1965. At Coolidge's subsequent jury trial for murder, vacuum sweepings from the car were introduced into evidence. One of the guns taken from the home was also introduced. Vacuum sweepings from the clothing were introduced into evidence. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after upholding the admissibility of the evidence, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
While executing a warrant for weapons and proceeds of a robbery, officers see a stereo and other items they recognize as stolen property sitting in plain view on shelves. They seize the items even though the warrant did not list them. The homeowner moves to suppress the seized property.
Petitioner Terry Brice Horton was convicted of the armed robbery of Erwin Wallaker, the treasurer of the San Jose Coin Club. When Wallaker returned to his home after the Club's annual show, he entered his garage and was accosted by two masked men, one armed with a machine gun and the other with an electrical shocking device. The two men shocked Wallaker, bound and handcuffed him, and robbed him of jewelry and cash. During the encounter sufficient conversation took place to enable Wallaker subsequently to identify petitioner's distinctive voice. Sergeant LaRault, an experienced police officer, investigated the crime and determined that there was probable cause to search petitioner's home for the proceeds of the robbery and for the weapons used by the robbers. His affidavit for a search warrant referred to police reports that described the weapons as well as the proceeds, but the warrant issued by the Magistrate only authorized a search for the proceeds, including three specifically described rings. Pursuant to the warrant, LaRault searched petitioner's residence, but he did not find the stolen property. During the course of the search, however, he discovered the weapons in plain view and seized them. Specifically, he seized an Uzi machine gun, a .38-caliber revolver, two stun guns, a handcuff key, a San Jose Coin Club advertising brochure, and a few items of clothing identified by the victim. LaRault testified that while he was searching for the rings, he also was interested in finding other evidence connecting petitioner to the robbery. The trial court refused to suppress the evidence found in petitioner's home and, after a jury trial, petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. It rejected petitioner's argument that the decision in Coolidge required suppression of the seized evidence that had not been listed in the warrant because its discovery was not inadvertent. The California Supreme Court denied petitioner's request for review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The officer must be lawfully present in the location from which the item is viewed. The item must be in plain view rather than discovered through an additional search. The incriminating character of the item must be immediately apparent, meaning the officer has probable cause to believe it is contraband or evidence of a crime.
Supporting sources
…evidence of the crime would be found in petitioner's home and automobile. The seizure of the clothing was justified under the plain view doctrine once the officers were lawfully in the home with the consent of petitioner's wife. With respect to the automobile, I believe the warrant was valid. The Attorney General, while involved in…
…determine whether the search was pretextual. Pp. 137-142. (c) In this case, the seizure of the weapons was authorized by the plain view doctrine. The officer had a valid warrant to search for the proceeds of the robbery and, while executing the warrant, he discovered the weapons in
…dictum. This Court has discovered cases in other federal courts that appear to regard our Court of Appeals as establishing an exception to the general proposition that “[t]here is no question that federal law governs the admissibility of wiretap recordings in federal court and any ‘complaints that the evidence was obtained…
…the SUV, he saw the revolver in plain view in the open map pocket in the driver's side door. Under the Fourth Amendment, the
…valid under Terry , but found the seizure of the cocaine to be unconstitutional. The court expressly refused "to extend the plain view doctrine to the sense of touch" on the grounds that "the sense of touch is inherently less immediate and less reliable than the sense of sight" and that "the sense of touch is far more intrusive…
No. Probable cause may rest on the officer's training and experience recognizing distinctive packaging commonly used for drugs even when the container is opaque. Courts have upheld seizures of taped balls, knotted balloons, and film canisters when specialized knowledge supplied the required probable cause.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the serial number is not visible without manipulation, lifting or rotating the object constitutes a separate search. Officers must already possess probable cause that the item is evidence or contraband before moving it. Reasonable suspicion is insufficient.
Supporting sources
No. The Supreme Court has held that the discovery need not be inadvertent. Officers may seize evidence they recognize while executing a warrant for other items so long as the three core requirements of lawful presence, plain view, and immediate apparent incriminating character are met.