plain view doctrine in Arizona

2021However, Gomez contends the agent’s subjective intent to also uncover evidence about the homicide, unrelated to the drug investigation, requires the murder evidence discovered be suppressed. ¶18 Under the plain view doctrine, while officers are executing a search warrant, and “[a]s long as the warrant authorized them to be where they were, the police could seize any items that were in plain view, the evidentiary value of which was immediately apparent.” State v. Apelt, 176 Ariz. 349, 362 (1993).

1999Since Horton , the appellate courts have considered the element of inadvertence but without specifically recognizing the impact of Horton . ¶ 18 In Apelt , decided three years after Horton , the supreme court considered the validity of a seizure in the context of the plain-view doctrine. 176 Ariz. 349 , 861 P.2d 634 .

2019No warrant was required, the State argues, because the contents of the notebooks were in plain view as Officer Marienau performed a valid inventory search. ¶16 Under the plain view doctrine, “if police are lawfully in a position from which they can view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993); State v. Sisco, 239 Ariz. 532, 535, ¶ 11 (2016).

2016The doctrine allows police to seize an object “if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 374-75 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); see also Horton, 496 U.S. at 133-34 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326-27 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); Mazen v. Seidel, 189 Ariz. 195, 197 , 940 P.2d 923, 925 (1997). *536 ¶ 12 By requiring that an object’s “incriminating character” be “immediately apparent” for purposes of the

2021See Horton, 496 U.S. at 142 . ¶20 Gomez contends that given the unique nature of electronic data, the plain view doctrine should not apply to cell phones.

2016The doctrine allows police to seize an object “if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 374-75 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); see also Horton, 496 U.S. at 133-34 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326-27 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); Mazen v. Seidel, 189 Ariz. 195, 197 , 940 P.2d 923, 925 (1997). *536 ¶ 12 By requiring that an object’s “incriminating character” be “immediately apparent” for purposes of the

2016Although the phrase “immediately apparent” might suggest “near certainty,” Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), the Court has rejected such “an unduly high degree of certainty as to the incriminatory character of evidence” for application of the plain view doctrine, id. clarifying that police need only have probable cause to associate the object with criminal activity.

2016Although the phrase “immediately apparent” might suggest “near certainty,” Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), the Court has rejected such “an unduly high degree of certainty as to the incriminatory character of evidence” for application of the plain view doctrine, id. clarifying that police need only have probable cause to associate the object with criminal activity.

2008See Soldal, 506 U.S. at 65-66 , 113 S.Ct. 538 .

2008See Soldal, 506 U.S. at 65-66 , 113 S.Ct. 538 .

2008See Rawlings, 448 U.S. at 105-06 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 ; Salvucci, 448 U.S. at 91-92 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 . ¶ 9 Tarkington quotes extensively from Soldal’s discussion of the plain-view doctrine.

2008See Rawlings, 448 U.S. at 105-06 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 ; Salvucci, 448 U.S. at 91-92 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 . ¶ 9 Tarkington quotes extensively from Soldal’s discussion of the plain-view doctrine.

2022Id. at 536 ¶ 12. ¶7 The trial court did not err in finding all three requirements of the plain-view doctrine met.

2019No warrant was required, the State argues, because the contents of the notebooks were in plain view as Officer Marienau performed a valid inventory search. ¶16 Under the plain view doctrine, “if police are lawfully in a position from which they can view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993); State v. Sisco, 239 Ariz. 532, 535, ¶ 11 (2016).

1999In its supplemental opinion, the court made clear that *432 its holding was limited in scope, and it expressly refused to “express any opinion on whether the plain view doctrine or independent source doctrine can be invoked to introduce evidence directly or primarily obtained in a[n unconstitutional] search or seizure of a home____” Id. at 470 n. 1, 724 P.2d at 556 n. 1. ¶ 14 The warrant exceptions of inevitable discovery and independent source relate because they serve to purge the taint of impermissible law-enforcement activity, causally disconnecting the acquisition of the evidence from the

1999He cites State v. Ault, 150 Ariz. 459, 464 , 724 P.2d 545, 550 (1986), as requiring three elements: (1) that the officer have a prior justification to be in the position to see the evidence, (2) that the discovery of the evidence be inadvertent and (3) that its evidentiary value be immediately apparent.

2019An officer “is not required to close his eyes to evidence which is in plain view.” State v. Kelly, 130 Ariz. 375, 378 (App. 1981) (concluding that glancing at documents not listed in a search warrant is permissible, but reading the documents is not). ¶18 Here, Officer Acero received Brixey’s consent to search the truck for narcotics related to Wellman’s arrest, and the search included opening containers that could hold narcotics.

2018State v. DeCamp, 197 Ariz. 36, 39-40, ¶ 14 (App. 1999). ¶8 Jackson argues that the officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing conflicted with a police report narrative suggesting the cigar wraps were not in plain view, rendering the search illegal.

2018See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300 .

2018State v. Mendoza-Ruiz, 225 Ariz. 473, 474 , ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2010); State v. Valle, 196 Ariz. 324, 326, ¶ 6 (App. 2000).

2016The doctrine allows police to seize an object “if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 374-75 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); see also Horton, 496 U.S. at 133-34 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326-27 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); Mazen v. Seidel, 189 Ariz. 195, 197 , 940 P.2d 923, 925 (1997). *536 ¶ 12 By requiring that an object’s “incriminating character” be “immediately apparent” for purposes of the

2016The doctrine allows police to seize an object “if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 374-75 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); see also Horton, 496 U.S. at 133-34 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326-27 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987); Mazen v. Seidel, 189 Ariz. 195, 197 , 940 P.2d 923, 925 (1997). *536 ¶ 12 By requiring that an object’s “incriminating character” be “immediately apparent” for purposes of the

2015See State v. Jeney, 163 Ariz. 293, 296 , 787 P.2d 1089, 1092 (App. 1989) (“searches and seizures are to be examined under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the good or bad faith intention of a police officer, or to the underlying intent or motive of the individual officer involved”).

2015See State v. Jeney, 163 Ariz. 293, 296 , 787 P.2d 1089, 1092 (App. 1989) (“searches and seizures are to be examined under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the good or bad faith intention of a police officer, or to the underlying intent or motive of the individual officer involved”).

2010Action No. J-103621-01, 181 Ariz. 375, 378 , 891 P.2d 243, 246 (App.1995); see also Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741-42 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (plurality opinion) (explaining that “immediately apparent” language does not require higher degree of certainty than probable cause); cf. State v. Garcia, 162 Ariz. 471, 474 , 784 P.2d 297, 300 (App.1989) (search and seizure based upon plain view required probable cause to believe envelope contained drags). ¶ 16 Here, South testified he had seen a surveillance video that showed Ahumada receive something from another man.

2010Action No. J-103621-01, 181 Ariz. 375, 378 , 891 P.2d 243, 246 (App.1995); see also Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741-42 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (plurality opinion) (explaining that “immediately apparent” language does not require higher degree of certainty than probable cause); cf. State v. Garcia, 162 Ariz. 471, 474 , 784 P.2d 297, 300 (App.1989) (search and seizure based upon plain view required probable cause to believe envelope contained drags). ¶ 16 Here, South testified he had seen a surveillance video that showed Ahumada receive something from another man.

2010Action No. J-103621-01, 181 Ariz. 375, 378 , 891 P.2d 243, 246 (App.1995); see also Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741-42 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (plurality opinion) (explaining that “immediately apparent” language does not require higher degree of certainty than probable cause); cf. State v. Garcia, 162 Ariz. 471, 474 , 784 P.2d 297, 300 (App.1989) (search and seizure based upon plain view required probable cause to believe envelope contained drags). ¶ 16 Here, South testified he had seen a surveillance video that showed Ahumada receive something from another man.

2010Action No. J-103621-01, 181 Ariz. 375, 378 , 891 P.2d 243, 246 (App.1995); see also Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741-42 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (plurality opinion) (explaining that “immediately apparent” language does not require higher degree of certainty than probable cause); cf. State v. Garcia, 162 Ariz. 471, 474 , 784 P.2d 297, 300 (App.1989) (search and seizure based upon plain view required probable cause to believe envelope contained drags). ¶ 16 Here, South testified he had seen a surveillance video that showed Ahumada receive something from another man.

1999See, e.g., Murray, 487 U.S. at 541 , 108 S.Ct. 2529 ; Segura, 468 U.S. at 799 , 104 S.Ct. 3380 ; Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487-88 , 83 S.Ct. 407 ; see also Hackman, 189 Ariz. at 508-10 , 943 P.2d at 868-70 .

1999See, e.g., Murray, 487 U.S. at 541 , 108 S.Ct. 2529 ; Segura, 468 U.S. at 799 , 104 S.Ct. 3380 ; Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487-88 , 83 S.Ct. 407 ; see also Hackman, 189 Ariz. at 508-10 , 943 P.2d at 868-70 .

1999See, e.g., Murray, 487 U.S. at 541 , 108 S.Ct. 2529 ; Segura, 468 U.S. at 799 , 104 S.Ct. 3380 ; Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487-88 , 83 S.Ct. 407 ; see also Hackman, 189 Ariz. at 508-10 , 943 P.2d at 868-70 .

1999See, e.g., Murray, 487 U.S. at 541 , 108 S.Ct. 2529 ; Segura, 468 U.S. at 799 , 104 S.Ct. 3380 ; Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487-88 , 83 S.Ct. 407 ; see also Hackman, 189 Ariz. at 508-10 , 943 P.2d at 868-70 .

1997Id. at 259 (citations omitted).

1997Id. at 259 (citations omitted).