plain view doctrine in New York

2025The plain view doctrine permits law enforcement officers to seize evidence if they are lawfully in a position to observe it — in other words, evidence is not considered to be in plain view "when an officer gains the vantage point from which they view incriminating evidence by violating a constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures" ( People v Messano, 41 NY3d 228 , 233 [2024]; see People v Brown , 96 NY2d 80, 89 [2001]).

2024Under this “plain view doctrine, . . . law enforcement officers may properly seize an item in ‘plain view’ without a warrant if[,]” in pertinent part, “they are lawfully in a position to observe the item” (People v Brown, 96 NY2d 80, 89 [2001]).1 “[T]he fundamental justification for the plain view doctrine is that when the police are already lawfully in a position to make the observation, the discovery and seizure of contraband in plain view involve no intrusion on the individual’s constitutional rights beyond that already authorized by the warrant or some exception to the warrant requirement”

2025The theory underlying the justification for the plain view exception cannot logically be extended to concealed items which are discoverable only through [so-called 'plain touch']" ( People v Diaz , 81 NY2d 106, 110-11 [1993]) .

2025It is the People's burden to establish that the elements of the plain view doctrine are met to show the seizure of the item was lawful ( id. ).

2022"Under the plain view doctrine, if the sight of an object gives the police probable cause to believe that it is an instrumentality of a crime, the object may be seized without a warrant if three conditions are met: (1) the police are lawfully in the position from which the object is viewed; (2) the police have lawful access to the object; and (3) the object's incriminating nature is immediately apparent" ( People v Diaz , 81 NY2d 106, 110 ; see Horton v California , 496 US 128, 136-137 ).

2014Since Detective Anderson did not have a lawful vantage point when he saw the defendant holding a “blunt,” the People may not rely on the plain view doctrine to justify the seizure of the gun, marijuana, and the “crusher,” since an essential predicate of the plain view doctrine is that the officer had the right to be in a position to have the view of the incriminating evidence (see Horton v California, 496 US 128, 136 [1990]; People v Machovoe, 242 AD2d 898 [1997]; People v Abruzzi, 52 AD2d at 502 ; Katz and Shapiro, 1-15 New York Suppression Manual § 15.03).

2024As relevant here, the People sought to establish that the plain view doctrine, an established exception to the warrant requirement, justified their seizure of the challenged tangible evidence—i.e., checks, a printer, and a computer discovered in defendant's living room ( see Messano , 41 NY3d at 232-233; see generally Arizona v Hicks , 480 US 321, 326 [1987]; Coolidge v New Hampshire , 403 US 443, 465 [1971 plurality]).

2022The plain view doctrine is not applicable where the object must be moved or manipulated before its illegality can be determined ( see Arizona v Hicks , 480 US 321, 328 ; see also Minnesota v Dickerson , 508 US 366, 378-379 ; People v Diaz , 81 NY2d at 110-112 ).

2025Seizure of an item is not justified under the plain view doctrine where at the time of the seizure the officer does not have information about that specific object being contraband the object's incriminating nature, an object having a potential illicit use is insufficient to support seizure under the plain view doctrine ( People v Mosquito , 197 AD3d 504, 511 [2d Dept 2021] [holding that the officer's discovery of three credit cards stacked inside a small zippered wallet was insufficient, without more, to justify an additional search that went beyond the search for [*9]marihuana reasoning that

2025Seizure of an item is not justified under the plain view doctrine where at the time of the seizure the officer does not have information about that specific object being contraband the object's incriminating nature, an object having a potential illicit use is insufficient to support seizure under the plain view doctrine ( People v Mosquito , 197 AD3d 504, 511 [2d Dept 2021] [holding that the officer's discovery of three credit cards stacked inside a small zippered wallet was insufficient, without more, to justify an additional search that went beyond the search for [*9]marihuana reasoning that

2024As relevant here, the People sought to establish that the plain view doctrine, an established exception to the warrant requirement, justified their seizure of the challenged tangible evidence—i.e., checks, a printer, and a computer discovered in defendant's living room ( see Messano , 41 NY3d at 232-233; see generally Arizona v Hicks , 480 US 321, 326 [1987]; Coolidge v New Hampshire , 403 US 443, 465 [1971 plurality]).

2001One such exception is the plain view doctrine, a judicially formulated concept first enunciated by the Supreme Court in Coolidge v New Hamphsire ( 403 US 443 , supra; see generally, Twenty-Ninth Review of Criminal Procedure, Warrantless Searches and Seizures, 88 Geo L J 912, 934 n 174).

2005The plain view doctrine, rather than requiring near certainty as to the incriminating nature of the object, “merely requires that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief . . . that certain items may be contraband” (Texas v Brown, 460 US 730, 742 [1983] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoted in People v Batista, 261 AD2d 218, 221 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 819 [1999]).

2001See, United States v George, 975 F2d 72, 79 (2d Cir) (severing directive to search for “any other evidence relating to the commission of a crime” and remanding to determine whether guns were found in plain view within scope of lawful portion of warrant); Commonwealth v Lett, 393 Mass 141, 147, 470 NE2d 110, 114-115 (severing directive to seize heroin for lack of probable cause and upholding seizure of heroin under the plain view doctrine); State v Bussard, 114 Idaho 781, 787-788 , 760 P2d 1197, 1203-1204 (1988) (severing directive to search for “miscellaneous * * * jewelry” and admitting jewel

2015The undercover officer’s conclusion about the contents of the bag was reasonable under the facts *413 personally known to him, and it thus provided probable cause, thereby satisfying the “immediately apparent” element of the plain view doctrine (see People v Batista, 261 AD2d 218, 221-222 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 819 [1999]), and justifying the actions of the officers with whom he communicated (see People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 419-420 [1999]).

2008Accordingly, seizure of the drugs was justified by application of the plain view doctrine (see People v Batista, 261 AD2d 218 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 819 [1999]).

2003(Payton v New York, 445 US 573 [1980]; People v Minley, 68 NY2d 952 [1986]; People v Francis, 209 AD2d 539 [1994]; People v Spinelli, 35 NY2d 77 [1974].) Where a warrantless entry is not justified, the police may not rely on the plain view doctrine.

1997The court properly admitted the photographs under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement which permits seizure of an item not specifically referred to in the search warrant if the of fleer was lawfully in a position to observe the item, the observation was inadvertent rather than anticipated, and the incriminating character of the items was immediately apparent (see, Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 465-471 ; see also, People v Basilicato, 64 NY2d 103, 115 ; People v Spinelli, 35 NY2d 77, 80-81 ).

1997We find unpersuasive the People’s contention that the contraband recovered from under the hood of the vehicle that the defendant was operating should have been ruled admissible pursuant to the plain view doctrine (see generally, People v Beriguette, 84 NY2d 978 ; People v Diaz, 81 NY2d 106, 110 ; People v Basilicato, 64 NY2d 103, 115 ).

1997The court properly admitted the photographs under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement which permits seizure of an item not specifically referred to in the search warrant if the of fleer was lawfully in a position to observe the item, the observation was inadvertent rather than anticipated, and the incriminating character of the items was immediately apparent (see, Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 465-471 ; see also, People v Basilicato, 64 NY2d 103, 115 ; People v Spinelli, 35 NY2d 77, 80-81 ).

2024Under this “plain view doctrine, . . . law enforcement officers may properly seize an item in ‘plain view’ without a warrant if[,]” in pertinent part, “they are lawfully in a position to observe the item” (People v Brown, 96 NY2d 80, 89 [2001]).1 “[T]he fundamental justification for the plain view doctrine is that when the police are already lawfully in a position to make the observation, the discovery and seizure of contraband in plain view involve no intrusion on the individual’s constitutional rights beyond that already authorized by the warrant or some exception to the warrant requirement”

2024"Under the plain view doctrine, if the sight of an object gives the police probable cause to believe that it is the instrumentality of a crime, the object may be seized without a warrant if three conditions are met: (1) the police are lawfully in the position from which the object is viewed; (2) the police have lawful access to the [*2]object; and (3) the object's incriminating nature is immediately apparent" ( People v Diaz , 81 NY2d 106, 110 [1993], abrogated on other grounds by Minnesota v Dickerson , 508 US 366 [1993]; see People v Mosquito , 197 AD3d 504, 509 [2d Dept 2021]; People v Bish

2013Furthermore, because the People failed to prove the lawfulness of the entry into the defendant’s apartment, they cannot rely on the plain view doctrine to support the seizure of the ring or other physical evidence (see People v Brown, 96 NY2d 80, 87-89 [2001]; People v Allende, 39 NY2d 474, 477 [1976]; People v Matta, 76 AD2d at 846 ).

2013Furthermore, because the People failed to prove the lawfulness of the entry into the defendant’s apartment, they cannot rely on the plain view doctrine to support the seizure of the ring or other physical evidence (see People v Brown, 96 NY2d 80, 87-89 [2001]; People v Allende, 39 NY2d 474, 477 [1976]; People v Matta, 76 AD2d at 846 ).

2025Seizure of an item is not justified under the plain view doctrine where at the time of the seizure the officer does not have information about that specific object being contraband the object's incriminating nature, an object having a potential illicit use is insufficient to support seizure under the plain view doctrine ( People v Mosquito , 197 AD3d 504, 511 [2d Dept 2021] [holding that the officer's discovery of three credit cards stacked inside a small zippered wallet was insufficient, without more, to justify an additional search that went beyond the search for [*9]marihuana reasoning that

2025Seizure of an item is not justified under the plain view doctrine where at the time of the seizure the officer does not have information about that specific object being contraband the object's incriminating nature, an object having a potential illicit use is insufficient to support seizure under the plain view doctrine ( People v Mosquito , 197 AD3d 504, 511 [2d Dept 2021] [holding that the officer's discovery of three credit cards stacked inside a small zippered wallet was insufficient, without more, to justify an additional search that went beyond the search for [*9]marihuana reasoning that

2013Here, the first two criteria were satisfied by the hearing court’s factual finding, which is supported by the record, that the defendant’s wife consented to the entry by a parole officer and two police officers into the defendant’s home and to the opening of a bedroom closet in that home (see People v Gomez, 204 AD2d 656, 657 [1994]).

2013Here, the first two criteria were satisfied by the hearing court’s factual finding, which is supported by the record, that the defendant’s wife consented to the entry by a parole officer and two police officers into the defendant’s home and to the opening of a bedroom closet in that home (see People v Gomez, 204 AD2d 656, 657 [1994]).

2012“Under the circumstances, the officers had the authority, [pursuant to] the plain view doctrine, to seize defendant’s [clothing]” (People v Stein, 306 AD2d 943, 943 , lv denied 100 NY2d 599 , 1 NY3d 581 ).

2012“Under the circumstances, the officers had the authority, [pursuant to] the plain view doctrine, to seize defendant’s [clothing]” (People v Stein, 306 AD2d 943, 943 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 599 [2003], 1 NY3d 581 [2003]).

2024"Under the plain view doctrine, if the sight of an object gives the police probable cause to believe that it is the instrumentality of a crime, the object may be seized without a warrant if three conditions are met: (1) the police are lawfully in the position from which the object is viewed; (2) the police have lawful access to the [*2]object; and (3) the object's incriminating nature is immediately apparent" ( People v Diaz , 81 NY2d 106, 110 [1993], abrogated on other grounds by Minnesota v Dickerson , 508 US 366 [1993]; see People v Mosquito , 197 AD3d 504, 509 [2d Dept 2021]; People v Bish

2022Rather, we find that those videos were properly seized pursuant to the plain view doctrine, which authorizes law enforcement to seize an item in plain view if "(i) they are lawfully in a position to observe the item; (ii) they have lawful access to the item itself when they seize it; and (iii) the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent" ( People v Brown , 96 NY2d 80, 89 [2001]; accord People v Cole , 162 AD3d 1219 , 1220 [2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1002 [2018]).