plain view doctrine in Wisconsin

41 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2025 6 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (28)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Guygreen wis · 1992 · cited in 7 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2000–2022 2 sentences 2019See State v. Guy , 172 Wis. 2d 86 , 101, 492 N.W.2d 311 (1992) (under the plain view doctrine, no search occurs when police have a lawful vantage point and observe contraband in plain view). 2019See State v. Guy , 172 Wis. 2d 86 , 101, 492 N.W.2d 311 (1992) (under the plain view doctrine, no search occurs when police have a lawful vantage point and observe contraband in plain view).	3	7
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen scotus · 1971 · cited in 5 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1973–1994 2 sentences 1994"Plain View" Exception The trial court's decision denying Angiolo's motion to suppress also implies that the warrantless search in this case may be justified under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 6 See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971); Bies v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 457 , 251 N.W.2d 461 (1977). 1994"The plain view doctrine excuses the requirement of a warrant, but it does not permit the police to effect a seizure without probable cause." Id. at 474 , 251 N.W.2d at 469 .	2	5
Horton v. Californiagreen scotus · 1990 · cited in 3 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1992–2024 2 sentences 2024See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990) (holding that the plain view exception to the warrant requirement requires that seized evidence be in plain view and immediately identifiable as incriminating). 2022When considering the plain view doctrine, it is important to note that an article observed or seized would not “involve any invasion of privacy.” Id.	2	3
State v. Buchanangreen wis · 2011 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2011–2022 2 sentences 2022Under this doctrine, “objects falling within the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have the view are subject to valid seizure and may be introduced in[to] evidence.” State v. Buchanan, 2011 WI 49, ¶23 , 334 Wis. 2d 379 , 799 N.W.2d 775 (internal quotation marks and quoted source omitted); see also id. (noting the following three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine: “(1) the evidence must be in plain view; (2) the officer must have a prior justification for being in the position from which [he or] she discovers the evidence in ‘plain view’; an 2022Under this doctrine, “objects falling within the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have the view are subject to valid seizure and may be introduced in[to] evidence.” State v. Buchanan, 2011 WI 49, ¶23 , 334 Wis. 2d 379 , 799 N.W.2d 775 (internal quotation marks and quoted source omitted); see also id. (noting the following three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine: “(1) the evidence must be in plain view; (2) the officer must have a prior justification for being in the position from which [he or] she discovers the evidence in ‘plain view’; an	2	2
In Re Hon. Charles E. Kadinggreen wis · 1975 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1977–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., State v. Spraggin, 71 Wis.2d 604, 610-12 , 239 N.W.2d 297, 303-05 (1976). 1977State v. Spraggin, 71 Wis.2d 604, 610 , 239 N.W.2d 297, 304 (1976).	2	2
State v. Elamgreen wis · 1975 · cited in 3 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1975–2024 2 sentences 2024As such, the issue of whether the facts sufficiently established probable cause to authorize a search for drugs is moot. ¶10 The plain view doctrine applies to a search when three prerequisites are met: “[t]he police must have a prior justification for the intrusion which placed them in the position to observe the evidence in plain view, the evidence must be in plain view, and the discovery of the evidence must be inadvertent.” State v. Elam, 68 Wis. 2d 614, 622 , 229 N.W.2d 664 (1975). 2024As such, the issue of whether the facts sufficiently established probable cause to authorize a search for drugs is moot. ¶10 The plain view doctrine applies to a search when three prerequisites are met: “[t]he police must have a prior justification for the intrusion which placed them in the position to observe the evidence in plain view, the evidence must be in plain view, and the discovery of the evidence must be inadvertent.” State v. Elam, 68 Wis. 2d 614, 622 , 229 N.W.2d 664 (1975).	1	3
State v. Spraggingreen wis · 1976 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1977–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., State v. Spraggin, 71 Wis.2d 604, 610-12 , 239 N.W.2d 297, 303-05 (1976). 1977State v. Spraggin, 71 Wis.2d 604, 610 , 239 N.W.2d 297, 304 (1976).	1	2
State v. Davidsongreen wis · 1969 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1975–1986 2 sentences 1986See State v. Davidson, 44 Wis.2d 177, 194-96 , 170 N.W.2d 755, 764-65 (1969). 1986See State v. Davidson, 44 Wis.2d 177, 194-96 , 170 N.W.2d 755, 764-65 (1969).	1	2
State v. Oswaldgreen wisctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025See State v. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, ¶¶41-44 , 232 Wis. 2d 103 , 606 N.W.2d 238 (1999) (addressing circumstances in which, during the execution of a valid warrant, officers were permitted to seize items outside of the scope of that warrant under the plain view doctrine). ¶59 Although we have concluded that the warrant to search the smartphone was overly broad in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we do not resolve the potentially fact-intensive issues surrounding the determination of whether the text messages found in the resulting search must be suppressed. 2025See State v. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, ¶¶41-44 , 232 Wis. 2d 103 , 606 N.W.2d 238 (1999) (addressing circumstances in which, during the execution of a valid warrant, officers were permitted to seize items outside of the scope of that warrant under the plain view doctrine). ¶59 Although we have concluded that the warrant to search the smartphone was overly broad in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we do not resolve the potentially fact-intensive issues surrounding the determination of whether the text messages found in the resulting search must be suppressed.	1	1
State v. Schroedergreen wisctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021See, e.g., State v. Schroeder, 2000 WI App 128, ¶¶12-16 , 237 Wis. 2d 575 , 613 N.W.2d 911 (applying the plain view doctrine and concluding that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they found child pornography on a computer while lawfully searching it, pursuant to a search warrant, for evidence of online harassment). 13 No. 2019AP826-CR alternatively, suggests that it could “possibly demonstrate inevitable discovery” of some or all of the relevant items of evidence. 2021See, e.g., State v. Schroeder, 2000 WI App 128, ¶¶12-16 , 237 Wis. 2d 575 , 613 N.W.2d 911 (applying the plain view doctrine and concluding that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they found child pornography on a computer while lawfully searching it, pursuant to a search warrant, for evidence of online harassment). 13 No. 2019AP826-CR alternatively, suggests that it could “possibly demonstrate inevitable discovery” of some or all of the relevant items of evidence.	1	1
State v. Edgeberggreen wisctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011See Edgeberg, 188 Wis. 2d at 345-46 ("The officer's right to be in the place where the view occurs is fundamental to the validity of what follows.").	1	1
Michigan v. Longgreen scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 1 sentence 2011Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983).	1	1
United States v. Patrick Careygreen ca10 · 1999 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010	1	1
United States v. Graygreen vaed · 1999 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000	1	1
United States v. Gary Carwell Crouch, United States of America v. Mary Crouchgreen ca4 · 1981 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999	1	1
Minnesota v. Dickersongreen scotus · 1993 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1
State v. Bellgreen wis · 1974 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1
State v. Gonzalezgreen wisctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990	1	1
Michigan v. Cliffordgreen scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988	1	1
United States v. McDonnellgreen ned · 1970 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984	1	1
cluster 416957green · 1983 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984	1	1
Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co.green wis · 1979 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983	1	1
United States v. Charles H. Sokolowgreen ca5 · 1971 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977	1	1
United States v. Derl Graygreen ca6 · 1973 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977	1	1
United States v. Jimmie Truitt, Jr.green ca6 · 1975 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977	1	1
United States v. Jerry Lee Wilsongreen ca8 · 1975 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977	1	1
United States v. James E. Clarkgreen ca8 · 1976 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977	1	1
Adams v. Williamsgreen scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (29)

Case	Cited	Years
Bies v. State green wis · 1977 2 sentences 2000In order for the plain view doctrine to apply: "(1) the evidence must be in plain view; (2) the officer must have a prior justification for being in the position from which [he or] she discovers the evidence in 'plain view'; and (3) the evidence seized 'in itself or in itself with facts known to the officer at the time of the seizure, [must provide] probable cause to believe there is a connection between the evidence and criminal activity.'" State v. Guy, 172 Wis. 2d 86, 101-02 , 492 N.W.2d 311 (1992) (quoting State v. Washington, 134 Wis. 2d 108, 121 , 396 N.W.2d 156 (1986) (quoting Bies v. S 2000In order for the plain view doctrine to apply: "(1) the evidence must be in plain view; (2) the officer must have a prior justification for being in the position from which [he or] she discovers the evidence in 'plain view'; and (3) the evidence seized 'in itself or in itself with facts known to the officer at the time of the seizure, [must provide] probable cause to believe there is a connection between the evidence and criminal activity.'" State v. Guy, 172 Wis. 2d 86, 101-02 , 492 N.W.2d 311 (1992) (quoting State v. Washington, 134 Wis. 2d 108, 121 , 396 N.W.2d 156 (1986) (quoting Bies v. S	4	1984–2013
State v. Washington green wis · 1986 2 sentences 2011In Guy, we proceeded with the analysis by setting forth the three conditions that must be met in order for the plain view doctrine to apply: (1) the evidence must be in plain view; (2) the officer must have a prior justification for being in the position from which she discovers the evidence in "plain view"; and (3) the evidence seized 'in itself or in itself with facts known to the officer at the time of the seizure, [must provide] probable cause to believe there is a connection between the evidence and criminal activity.' Guy, 172 Wis. 2d at 101-02 (quoting State v. Washington, 134 Wis. 2d 1 2011In Guy, we proceeded with the analysis by setting forth the three conditions that must be met in order for the plain view doctrine to apply: (1) the evidence must be in plain view; (2) the officer must have a prior justification for being in the position from which she discovers the evidence in "plain view"; and (3) the evidence seized 'in itself or in itself with facts known to the officer at the time of the seizure, [must provide] probable cause to believe there is a connection between the evidence and criminal activity.' Guy, 172 Wis. 2d at 101-02 (quoting State v. Washington, 134 Wis. 2d 1	4	1990–2011
Edwards v. State green wis · 1968 2 sentences 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.	4	1973–1977
State v. Brown green wis · 1964 2 sentences 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.	3	1973–1977
Day v. State green wis · 1973 2 sentences 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.	2	1974–1977
State v. Taylor green wis · 1973 2 sentences 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.	2	1974–1977
State v. Hebard green wis · 1971 2 sentences 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.	2	1974–1977
Warrix v. State green wis · 1971 2 sentences 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.	2	1974–1977
Milburn v. State green wis · 1971 2 sentences 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.	2	1974–1977
Mears v. State green wis · 1971 2 sentences 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.	2	1974–1977
Soehle v. State green wis · 1973 2 sentences 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. 1977Day v. State (1973), 61 Wis.2d 236 , 212 N.W. 2d 489 ; State v. Taylor (1973), 60 Wis.2d 506 , 210 N.W.2d 873 ; Soehle v. State (1973), 60 Wis.2d 72 , 208 N.W.2d 341 ; Mears v. State (1971), 52 Wis.2d 435 , 190 N.W.2d 184 ; Warrix v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 368 , 184 N.W.2d 189 ; State v. Hebard (1971), 50 Wis.2d 408 , 184 N.W.2d 156 ; Milburn v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 53 , 183 N.W.2d 70 ; State v. Brown (1964), 25 Wis.2d 413, 418 , 130 N.W.2d 760 ; Edwards v. State (1968), 38 Wis.2d 332 , 156 N.W.2d 397 .” The state argues this case fits the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.	2	1974–1977
Florida v. Jimeno green scotus · 1991 1 sentence 2021“The scope of a search is generally defined by its expressed object.” Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251 .	1	2021–2021
State v. Carroll green wis · 2010 2 sentences 2019State v. Carroll , 2010 WI 8 , ¶21, 322 Wis. 2d 299 , 778 N.W.2d 1 . ¶16 Trinrud complains that towing his vehicle constituted an unlawful prearrest warrantless seizure. 2019State v. Carroll , 2010 WI 8 , ¶21, 322 Wis. 2d 299 , 778 N.W.2d 1 . ¶16 Trinrud complains that towing his vehicle constituted an unlawful prearrest warrantless seizure.	1	2019–2019
State v. Pinkard green wis · 2010 2 sentences 2016The State contends, and we agree, that if the officers' search was justified as a reasonable exercise of a bona fide community caretaker function, the officers "acted within the scope of the plain view doctrine when they seized contraband from the residence, including the locked room." See Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶ 62 ; Gracia, 345 Wis. 2d 488 , ¶ 29 n.14 (explaining plain view exception to the warrant requirement). 2016This would tend to show that Officer Ruha believed there might have been individuals in the room. 31 The State contends, and we agree, that if the officers' search was justified as a reasonable exercise of a bona fide community caretaker function, the officers "acted within the scope of the plain view doctrine when they seized contraband from the residence, including the locked room." See Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶62 ; Gracia, 345 Wis. 2d 488 , ¶29 n.14 (explaining plain view exception to the warrant requirement). 41 No. 2014AP108-CR the community caretaker doctrine, we need not determine whe	1	2016–2016
State v. Gracia green wis · 2013 2 sentences 2016The State contends, and we agree, that if the officers' search was justified as a reasonable exercise of a bona fide community caretaker function, the officers "acted within the scope of the plain view doctrine when they seized contraband from the residence, including the locked room." See Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶ 62 ; Gracia, 345 Wis. 2d 488 , ¶ 29 n.14 (explaining plain view exception to the warrant requirement). 2016This would tend to show that Officer Ruha believed there might have been individuals in the room. 31 The State contends, and we agree, that if the officers' search was justified as a reasonable exercise of a bona fide community caretaker function, the officers "acted within the scope of the plain view doctrine when they seized contraband from the residence, including the locked room." See Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346, ¶62 ; Gracia, 345 Wis. 2d 488 , ¶29 n.14 (explaining plain view exception to the warrant requirement). 41 No. 2014AP108-CR the community caretaker doctrine, we need not determine whe	1	2016–2016
State v. McGovern green wis · 1977 2 sentences 2013State v. McGovern, 77 Wis. 2d 203, 210 , 252 N.W.2d 365 (1977). 2013State v. McGovern, 77 Wis. 2d 203, 210 , 252 N.W.2d 365 (1977).	1	2013–2013
State v. Anderson green wisctapp · 1987 2 sentences 2013The court of appeals examined the community caretaker function ten years later in State v. Anderson, 142 Wis. 2d 162 , 417 N.W.2d 411 (1987). 2013The court of appeals examined the community caretaker function ten years later in State v. Anderson, 142 Wis. 2d 162 , 417 N.W.2d 411 (1987).	1	2013–2013
State v. Sanders green wis · 2008 2 sentences 2010Sanders, 311 Wis.2d 257, ¶ 37 , 752 N.W.2d 713 . ¶ 25 Here, Belsha was in legal possession of the phone and thus in a lawful position to view the display screen, which, according to Belsha's uncontroverted testimony, was open and displayed the marijuana image. 2010Sanders, 311 Wis. 2d 257, ¶ 37 . ¶ 25.	1	2010–2010
Terry v. Ohio green scotus · 1968	1	1994–1994
United States v. Jairo Cardona-Rivera and Gustavo Luna Sanchez green ca7 · 1990	1	1992–1992
State v. Monahan green wis · 1977	1	1990–1990
State v. Sagner green orctapp · 1973	1	1984–1984
Myers v. State green wis · 1973	1	1984–1984
Vroom v. Irwin green scotus · 1974	1	1977–1977
State v. Chambers green wis · 1972	1	1975–1975
State v. Williamson green wis · 1973	1	1975–1975
Ohio Hoist Manufacturing Co. v. LiRocchi green scotus · 1974	1	1975–1975
Anderson v. State green wis · 1974	1	1975–1975
The People v. Marvin green ill · 1934	1	1973–1973

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 971.31 (11) WI § Wis. Stat. § 808.10 (7) WI § Wis. Stat. § 961.41 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 941.29 (3) WI § Wis. Stat. § 968.24 (3) WI § Wis. Stat. § 971.23 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 323 (1973–2026) PA 276 (1970–2026) TX 266 (1972–2026) LA 207 (1975–2025) NJ 156 (1977–2026) IL 148 (1968–2025) NY 138 (1972–2026) WA 118 (1971–2026) GA 98 (1974–2024) MI 98 (1970–2026) IN 96 (1971–2023) VA 82 (1987–2026) FL 80 (1973–2026) MA 76 (1975–2026) CA 74 (1972–2026) MO 73 (1972–2017) TN 69 (1980–2025) NC 63 (1974–2025) CT 59 (1973–2025) AL 59 (1971–2018) CO 59 (1970–2026) KS 54 (1971–2022) MD 51 (1972–2026) OR 45 (1972–2026) MN 44 (1977–2024) ID 43 (1974–2026) NM 43 (1975–2025) WI 41 (1973–2025) MS 37 (1977–2025) DC 32 (1973–2025) MT 31 (1977–2025) IA 31 (1976–2026) SC 29 (1983–2023) KY 28 (1972–2025) AR 27 (1977–2021) OK 26 (1977–2015) ND 23 (1981–2026) AZ 22 (1973–2022) NE 21 (1976–2022) UT 19 (1981–2006) NH 19 (1976–2019) WY 18 (1979–2019) HI 17 (1975–2021) DE 17 (1971–2025) WV 17 (1980–2023) RI 16 (1974–2010) ME 16 (1971–2025) AK 16 (1974–2019) NV 15 (1981–2021) VT 12 (1976–2021) SD 11 (1973–2006) VI 8 (1984–2026)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check