Talk:Plain view doctrine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Srsaff. Peer reviewers: Bhatsls.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for discovery[edit]

I don't belive that the object has to be discovered accidentally for the third prong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.209.171 (talk • contribs)

By discovered accidentally, it means the intent of the search was not to discover the object. I am relatively sure this is an element of the test, but if you can find a source that says otherwise, we can correct it. --Cspurrier 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, IP user; a plain view seizure can be valid even if the discovery of the evidence is not inadvertent or accidental. The whole "inadvertence" thing started in 1971, with a U.S. Supreme Court plurality opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, which (among other things) dealt with the plain view doctrine. The Coolidge plurality held that even if an item is in plain view, it may not be lawfully seized without a warrant unless the police first comply with three conditions: [1] the police must lawfully be in a position to observe the item, [2] the incriminating nature of the item is immediately apparent ; and [3] the discovery of the item was inadvertent. However, in Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), a majority of the Court dispensed with the "inadvertence" requirement, holding that even if police seized evidence in plain view that they expected to find (i.e. the seizure was NOT "inadvertent"), seizures of evidence in plain view were justified even if they only complied with the lawfully-in-position and immediately-apparent conditions. Coolidge can be found at http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/443/case.html (the plain view discussion is in part II-C), and Horton can be found at http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/128/case.html. 66.171.140.229 01:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the officer must have legal access to the item? I.E., can't bust a window to get the evidence. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Officer have a legal right to be on your property? cmanser 09:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. focus[edit]

The article cites only American cases and procedures, but versions of this principle exist elsewhere. The article ought to contain a statement of the general principle, instead of merely discussing the tests used in American law. TheFeds 03:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]