23 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Horton v. Californiagreen2 sentences2015We have explained that “[u]nder the plain view exception, police officers may seize a clearly incriminating object without a warrant if the Officers are lawfully in a position from which they view an object and the object’s incriminating character is immediately apparent.” Albaugh , at ¶ 18; see Nickel, at ¶ 30; State v. Wamre, 1999 ND 164, ¶ 16 , 599 N.W.2d 268 (citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 135-36 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). 2015We have explained that “[u]nder the plain view exception, police officers may seize a clearly incriminating object without a warrant if the Officers are lawfully in a position from which they view an object and the object’s incriminating character is immediately apparent.” Albaugh , at ¶ 18; see Nickel, at ¶ 30; State v. Wamre, 1999 ND 164, ¶ 16 , 599 N.W.2d 268 (citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 135-36 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). | 4 | 5 |
Minnesota v. Dickersongreen2 sentences2021See also Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76 (1993) (establishing “plain touch” or “plain feel” concept as analogous to the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment when an officer discovers contraband through sense of touch during an otherwise lawful search). [¶11] The juvenile court found the officer safety exception justified the pat down, but the record did not support the further warrantless search of K.V. based on the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement because the officer did not identify what he felt in K.V.’s pockets. 2015We have explained that “[u]nder the plain view exception, police officers may seize a clearly incriminating object without a warrant if the Officers are lawfully in a position from which they view an object and the object’s incriminating character is immediately apparent.” Albaugh , at ¶ 18; see Nickel, at ¶ 30; State v. Wamre, 1999 ND 164, ¶ 16 , 599 N.W.2d 268 (citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 135-36 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). | 3 | 7 |
State v. Gregggreen2 sentences2006State v. Thieling, 2000 ND 106, ¶ 8 , 611 N.W.2d 861 (citing State v. Lewis, 527 N.W.2d 658, 663 (N.D.1995)); see also State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 29, 34-35 , 615 N.W.2d 515 (upholding a search under the plain view doctrine when the officer observed a syringe on the floor and then conducted further inquiry into whether the syringe was used for medicinal purposes). 2006State v. Thieling, 2000 ND 106, ¶ 8 , 611 N.W.2d 861 (citing State v. Lewis, 527 N.W.2d 658, 663 (N.D.1995)); see also State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 29, 34-35 , 615 N.W.2d 515 (upholding a search under the plain view doctrine when the officer observed a syringe on the floor and then conducted further inquiry into whether the syringe was used for medicinal purposes). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2007See Anderson, 2006 ND 44, ¶ 38 , 710 N.W.2d 392 . 2007See Anderson, 2006 ND 44, ¶ 38 , 710 N.W.2d 392 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2006State v. Thieling, 2000 ND 106, ¶ 8 , 611 N.W.2d 861 (citing State v. Lewis, 527 N.W.2d 658, 663 (N.D.1995)); see also State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 29, 34-35 , 615 N.W.2d 515 (upholding a search under the plain view doctrine when the officer observed a syringe on the floor and then conducted further inquiry into whether the syringe was used for medicinal purposes). 2006State v. Thieling, 2000 ND 106, ¶ 8 , 611 N.W.2d 861 (citing State v. Lewis, 527 N.W.2d 658, 663 (N.D.1995)); see also State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 29, 34-35 , 615 N.W.2d 515 (upholding a search under the plain view doctrine when the officer observed a syringe on the floor and then conducted further inquiry into whether the syringe was used for medicinal purposes). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Grafgreen1 sentence2021When no exception exists, “any evidence seized is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule and must be suppressed.” Graf, 2006 ND 196, ¶ 9 (citing State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, ¶ 12 , 685 N.W.2d 120 ). [¶7] The State argues, however, that following the exclusionary rule in this case will not deter future Fourth Amendment violations because officers did not enter the residence intending to search. | 1 | 1 |
City of Fairgo v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2015City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578, 581 (N.D.1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Koskelagreen1 sentence2013It is undisputed that there was a warrantless seizure of the package; however, for the reasons stated above the seizure was supported by probable cause and the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. [¶28] Assuming without deciding the law enforcement officers had probable cause immediately after Danielson opened the package at We Ship and stepped aside to permit the officers to look into the package, we conclude plain view does not justify the warrantless seizure of the package for testing of the contents of one plastic tube at the state crime lab and the warrantless seizure of the r | 1 | 1 |
State v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2010See State v. Washington , 2007 ND 138, ¶ 17 , 737 N.W.2d 382 (seizure of evidence in plain view in a vehicle after occupant’s arrest was justified under the plain view doctrine or as incident to a lawful arrest); State v. Proell , 2007 ND 17, ¶ 8 , 726 N.W.2d 591 (as a contemporaneous incident of a lawful arrest of an occupant of a vehicle, an officer may search the vehicle without a warrant); State v. Maurstad , 2002 ND 121, ¶ 16 , 647 N.W.2d 688 (law enforcement officers, as well as probation officers, may conduct warrantless probation searches). 2010See State v. Washington , 2007 ND 138, ¶ 17 , 737 N.W.2d 382 (seizure of evidence in plain view in a vehicle after occupant’s arrest was justified under the plain view doctrine or as incident to a lawful arrest); State v. Proell , 2007 ND 17, ¶ 8 , 726 N.W.2d 591 (as a contemporaneous incident of a lawful arrest of an occupant of a vehicle, an officer may search the vehicle without a warrant); State v. Maurstad , 2002 ND 121, ¶ 16 , 647 N.W.2d 688 (law enforcement officers, as well as probation officers, may conduct warrantless probation searches). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Parizekgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Parizek, 2004 ND 78, ¶ 22 , 678 N.W.2d 154 (officer’s “use of a flashlight to see inside of the van does not render her observations illegal under the plain view doctrine”). 2007See State v. Parizek, 2004 ND 78, ¶ 22 , 678 N.W.2d 154 (officer’s “use of a flashlight to see inside of the van does not render her observations illegal under the plain view doctrine”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James L. Hattengreen1 sentence2004See State v. Klodt, 298 N.W.2d 783, 787 (N.D.1980); see also Mollica v. Volker, 229 F.3d 366, 369 (2d Cir.2000); United States v. Hatten, 68 F.3d 257, 261 (8th Cir.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Paul Mollica v. James A. Volkergreen1 sentence2004See State v. Klodt, 298 N.W.2d 783, 787 (N.D.1980); see also Mollica v. Volker, 229 F.3d 366, 369 (2d Cir.2000); United States v. Hatten, 68 F.3d 257, 261 (8th Cir.1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Klodtgreen1 sentence2004See State v. Klodt, 298 N.W.2d 783, 787 (N.D.1980); see also Mollica v. Volker, 229 F.3d 366, 369 (2d Cir.2000); United States v. Hatten, 68 F.3d 257, 261 (8th Cir.1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ackermangreen1 sentence1997Citing State v. Ackerman, 499 N.W.2d 882, 883 (N.D.1993), he argues that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated when the police entered the apartment after smelling marijuana, knocking at the door, and observing the apartment while talking to a resident of the apartment, Lori Kehrberg. | 1 | 1 |
Ker v. Californiagreen2 sentences1981See, e. g., Ker v. California, 374, U.S. 23, 42-43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1634-1635 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963)_” 8 . 1981See, e. g., Ker v. California, 374, U.S. 23, 42-43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1634-1635 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963)_” 8 . | 1 | 1 |
Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences1981See LO-JI Sales, Inc. v. State of New York, 442 U.S. 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2319 , 60 L.Ed.2d 920 (1979), wherein at footnote 5 the Court stated: “Of course, contraband may be seized without a warrant under the plain view doctrine. 1981See LO-JI Sales, Inc. v. State of New York, 442 U.S. 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2319 , 60 L.Ed.2d 920 (1979), wherein at footnote 5 the Court stated: “Of course, contraband may be seized without a warrant under the plain view doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences2013It is undisputed that there was a warrantless seizure of the package; however, for the reasons stated above the seizure was supported by probable cause and the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. [¶28] Assuming without deciding the law enforcement officers had probable cause immediately after Danielson opened the package at We Ship and stepped aside to permit the officers to look into the package, we conclude plain view does not justify the warrantless seizure of the package for testing of the contents of one plastic tube at the state crime lab and the warrantless seizure of the r 2013It is undisputed that there was a warrantless seizure of the package; however, for the reasons stated above the seizure was supported by probable cause and the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. [¶28] Assuming without deciding the law enforcement officers had probable cause immediately after Danielson opened the package at We Ship and stepped aside to permit the officers to look into the package, we conclude plain view does not justify the warrantless seizure of the package for testing of the contents of one plastic tube at the state crime lab and the warrantless seizure of the r | 4 | 1982–2013 |
State v. Mitzel
green
2 sentences2015State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, ¶ 12 , 685 N.W.2d 120 ; State v. Avila, 1997 ND 142, ¶ 16 , 566 N.W.2d 410 . [¶ 8] Although there are numerous exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the exception most relevant to this case is the plain view exception. 2015State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, ¶ 12 , 685 N.W.2d 120 ; State v. Avila, 1997 ND 142, ¶ 16 , 566 N.W.2d 410 . [¶ 8] Although there are numerous exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the exception most relevant to this case is the plain view exception. | 2 | 2015–2021 |
State v. Wamre
green
2 sentences2015We have explained that “[u]nder the plain view exception, police officers may seize a clearly incriminating object without a warrant if the Officers are lawfully in a position from which they view an object and the object’s incriminating character is immediately apparent.” Albaugh , at ¶ 18; see Nickel, at ¶ 30; State v. Wamre, 1999 ND 164, ¶ 16 , 599 N.W.2d 268 (citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 135-36 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). 2015We have explained that “[u]nder the plain view exception, police officers may seize a clearly incriminating object without a warrant if the Officers are lawfully in a position from which they view an object and the object’s incriminating character is immediately apparent.” Albaugh , at ¶ 18; see Nickel, at ¶ 30; State v. Wamre, 1999 ND 164, ¶ 16 , 599 N.W.2d 268 (citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 135-36 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). | 2 | 2015–2019 |
State v. Nickel
green
2 sentences2016In Ressler, 2005 ND 140, ¶ 15 , 701 N.W.2d 915 , the officer only had reasonable suspicion; and in Nickel, 2013 ND 155, ¶ 28 , 836 N.W.2d 405 , we did not decide whether the officer had probable cause, but we assumed there was probable cause for purposes of deciding the issue raised and held the record did not establish the requirements for the plain view exception were met. 2016In Ressler, 2005 ND 140, ¶ 15 , 701 N.W.2d 915 , the officer only had reasonable suspicion; and in Nickel, 2013 ND 155, ¶ 28 , 836 N.W.2d 405 , we did not decide whether the officer had probable cause, but we assumed there was probable cause for purposes of deciding the issue raised and held the record did not establish the requirements for the plain view exception were met. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Thieling
green
2 sentences2006State v. Thieling, 2000 ND 106, ¶ 8 , 611 N.W.2d 861 (citing State v. Lewis, 527 N.W.2d 658, 663 (N.D.1995)); see also State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 29, 34-35 , 615 N.W.2d 515 (upholding a search under the plain view doctrine when the officer observed a syringe on the floor and then conducted further inquiry into whether the syringe was used for medicinal purposes). 2006State v. Thieling, 2000 ND 106, ¶ 8 , 611 N.W.2d 861 (citing State v. Lewis, 527 N.W.2d 658, 663 (N.D.1995)); see also State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 29, 34-35 , 615 N.W.2d 515 (upholding a search under the plain view doctrine when the officer observed a syringe on the floor and then conducted further inquiry into whether the syringe was used for medicinal purposes). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Ressler
green
2 sentences2016In Ressler, 2005 ND 140, ¶ 15 , 701 N.W.2d 915 , the officer only had reasonable suspicion; and in Nickel, 2013 ND 155, ¶ 28 , 836 N.W.2d 405 , we did not decide whether the officer had probable cause, but we assumed there was probable cause for purposes of deciding the issue raised and held the record did not establish the requirements for the plain view exception were met. 2016In Ressler, 2005 ND 140, ¶ 15 , 701 N.W.2d 915 , the officer only had reasonable suspicion; and in Nickel, 2013 ND 155, ¶ 28 , 836 N.W.2d 405 , we did not decide whether the officer had probable cause, but we assumed there was probable cause for purposes of deciding the issue raised and held the record did not establish the requirements for the plain view exception were met. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Albaugh
green
2 sentences2015Although it is clear the first prong of the plain view doctrine has been satisfied, Zacher and the State disagree as to whether the incriminating nature of the plastic bag was “immediately apparent.” Albaugh, 2007 ND 86, ¶ 18 , 732 N.W.2d 712 . 2015Although it is clear the first prong of the plain view doctrine has been satisfied, Zacher and the State disagree as to whether the incriminating nature of the plastic bag was “immediately apparent.” Albaugh, 2007 ND 86, ¶ 18 , 732 N.W.2d 712 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Avila
green
2 sentences2015State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, ¶ 12 , 685 N.W.2d 120 ; State v. Avila, 1997 ND 142, ¶ 16 , 566 N.W.2d 410 . [¶ 8] Although there are numerous exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the exception most relevant to this case is the plain view exception. 2015State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157, ¶ 12 , 685 N.W.2d 120 ; State v. Avila, 1997 ND 142, ¶ 16 , 566 N.W.2d 410 . [¶ 8] Although there are numerous exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the exception most relevant to this case is the plain view exception. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Texas v. Brown
green
2 sentences2015Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983). 2015Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Garrett
green
2 sentences2013It is undisputed that there was a warrantless seizure of the package; however, for the reasons stated above the seizure was supported by probable cause and the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. [¶28] Assuming without deciding the law enforcement officers had probable cause immediately after Danielson opened the package at We Ship and stepped aside to permit the officers to look into the package, we conclude plain view does not justify the warrantless seizure of the package for testing of the contents of one plastic tube at the state crime lab and the warrantless seizure of the r 2013It is undisputed that there was a warrantless seizure of the package; however, for the reasons stated above the seizure was supported by probable cause and the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. [¶28] Assuming without deciding the law enforcement officers had probable cause immediately after Danielson opened the package at We Ship and stepped aside to permit the officers to look into the package, we conclude plain view does not justify the warrantless seizure of the package for testing of the contents of one plastic tube at the state crime lab and the warrantless seizure of the r | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Proell
green
2 sentences2010See State v. Washington , 2007 ND 138, ¶ 17 , 737 N.W.2d 382 (seizure of evidence in plain view in a vehicle after occupant’s arrest was justified under the plain view doctrine or as incident to a lawful arrest); State v. Proell , 2007 ND 17, ¶ 8 , 726 N.W.2d 591 (as a contemporaneous incident of a lawful arrest of an occupant of a vehicle, an officer may search the vehicle without a warrant); State v. Maurstad , 2002 ND 121, ¶ 16 , 647 N.W.2d 688 (law enforcement officers, as well as probation officers, may conduct warrantless probation searches). 2010See State v. Washington , 2007 ND 138, ¶ 17 , 737 N.W.2d 382 (seizure of evidence in plain view in a vehicle after occupant’s arrest was justified under the plain view doctrine or as incident to a lawful arrest); State v. Proell , 2007 ND 17, ¶ 8 , 726 N.W.2d 591 (as a contemporaneous incident of a lawful arrest of an occupant of a vehicle, an officer may search the vehicle without a warrant); State v. Maurstad , 2002 ND 121, ¶ 16 , 647 N.W.2d 688 (law enforcement officers, as well as probation officers, may conduct warrantless probation searches). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Maurstad
green
2 sentences2010See State v. Washington , 2007 ND 138, ¶ 17 , 737 N.W.2d 382 (seizure of evidence in plain view in a vehicle after occupant’s arrest was justified under the plain view doctrine or as incident to a lawful arrest); State v. Proell , 2007 ND 17, ¶ 8 , 726 N.W.2d 591 (as a contemporaneous incident of a lawful arrest of an occupant of a vehicle, an officer may search the vehicle without a warrant); State v. Maurstad , 2002 ND 121, ¶ 16 , 647 N.W.2d 688 (law enforcement officers, as well as probation officers, may conduct warrantless probation searches). 2010See State v. Washington , 2007 ND 138, ¶ 17 , 737 N.W.2d 382 (seizure of evidence in plain view in a vehicle after occupant’s arrest was justified under the plain view doctrine or as incident to a lawful arrest); State v. Proell , 2007 ND 17, ¶ 8 , 726 N.W.2d 591 (as a contemporaneous incident of a lawful arrest of an occupant of a vehicle, an officer may search the vehicle without a warrant); State v. Maurstad , 2002 ND 121, ¶ 16 , 647 N.W.2d 688 (law enforcement officers, as well as probation officers, may conduct warrantless probation searches). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences1985Nor is it necessary to consider the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule recently adopted by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S.___, 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), as to the items seized under the second and third warrants. [1] Although I am bothered by the officers' admitted intent of looking for evidence of other crimes not covered by the search warrant, I cannot equate that "bad faith" intent with the cases referred to in footnote 1 of the dissenting opinion which, as the footnote indicates, all involved the use of evidence which the prosec 1985Nor is it necessary to consider the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule recently adopted by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S.___, 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), as to the items seized under the second and third warrants. [1] Although I am bothered by the officers' admitted intent of looking for evidence of other crimes not covered by the search warrant, I cannot equate that "bad faith" intent with the cases referred to in footnote 1 of the dissenting opinion which, as the footnote indicates, all involved the use of evidence which the prosec | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Kottenbroch
green
1 sentence1984These facts distinguish this case from State v. Kottenbroch, 319 N.W.2d 465 (N.D.1982), where we upheld a war-rantless search of Kottenbroch’s motor vehicle under both the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and the plain view doctrine. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.
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.