Search & Seizure - Plain View

SEARCH & SEIZURE - PLAIN VIEW

RCT 2014-1

Welcome to the Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training’s Roll Call Training. The title of this presentation is Plain View, 2014 RCT #1.

OBJECTIVE

At the conclusion of this presentation, the student will be able to state the three elements of Plain View.

SUMMARY

The plain view doctrine is an often used – and sometimes misunderstood – search and seizure concept. The plain view is an exception to the general rule under the Fourth Amendment . The Fourth Amendment states that any search without a warrant into an area where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy is presumptively unreasonable. Plain view has primarily been discussed in the concept of something observable by sight. However, state and federal case law supports the idea that other senses may be used as well, and as such, we also have cases involving plain feel or touch, plain hearing and plain smell. However, that does not mean that anyone should taste evidence.

Plain View requires that an officer satisfy three separate elements.

1)  the officer must lawfully be in a location from where they are able to observe the evidence or contraband.

2)  it must be immediately apparent that the item is, in fact evidence or contraband. This does not require that the officer be absolutely certain, but at the least, it must meet the standard of probable cause. The more effort an officer must undertake to realize that the item is evidence or contraband, such as picking it up, manipulating it, etc., the less likely it is that the Court will agree that the contraband nature of the item was immediately apparent.

3)  in order for the item to be actually seized, it must be located in an area lawfully accessible to the officer, a place where the officer is lawfully permitted to be.

If you have any questions concerning this presentation, please feel free to contact the Legal Training Section in one of the following ways:

•  Website: www.docjt.ky.gov/legal

•  Phone: 859-622-3801

•  Email:

CASE REFERENCES

•  Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S . 443 (1971)

•  Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)

•  Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983).

•  Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006)

•  United States v. Chambers, 395 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2005)

•  Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2002).

•  Michigan v. Fisher, 130 S.Ct. 546 (2009)

•  U.S. v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976)

•  Hunt v. Com., 304 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2009)

•  Chavies v. Com., 354 S.W.3d 103 (Ky. 2011)