Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ramos v. Stategreen2 sentences2008“The plain view seizure doctrine requires a *270 two-prong showing: (1) that law enforcement officials see an item in plain view at a vantage point where they have the right to be, and (2) it is immediately apparent that the item seized constitutes evidence — that is, there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity.” Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (citing Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 , 117 S.Ct. 1556 , 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997)). 2007See Martinez, 17 S.W.3d at 685 (holding, “We agree with the State that the gun belt was properly obtained [from the appellant’s vehicle] under the plain view seizure doctrine”); Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (recognizing items not encompassed within search warrant were nonetheless validly seized pursuant to “plain view seizure” doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 , 117 S.Ct. 1556 , 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997); State v. Haley, 811 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding, “It has been very well settled that items in “plain view” may be seized by *616 law enforcement | 10 | 10 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences2012The trial court's fourth finding correctly states that the contraband was found in plain sight, but such a finding does not address the two-pronged showing required by the plain-view seizure doctrine: "(1) that law enforcement officials see an item in plain view at a vantage point where they have the right to be, and (2) it is immediately apparent that the item seized constitutes evidence-that is, there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity." Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 685 (Tex. Crim. 2012The trial court’s fourth finding correctly states that the contraband was found in plain sight, but such a finding does not address the two-pronged showing required by the plain-view seizure doctrine: “(1) that law enforcement officials see an item in plain view at a vantage point where they have the right to be, and (2) it is immediately apparent that the item seized constitutes evidence — that is, there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity.” Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). | 5 | 12 |
State v. Haleygreen2 sentences2007See Martinez, 17 S.W.3d at 685 (holding, “We agree with the State that the gun belt was properly obtained [from the appellant’s vehicle] under the plain view seizure doctrine”); Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (recognizing items not encompassed within search warrant were nonetheless validly seized pursuant to “plain view seizure” doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 , 117 S.Ct. 1556 , 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997); State v. Haley, 811 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding, “It has been very well settled that items in “plain view” may be seized by *616 law enforcement 2007App. 1996) (recognizing items not encompassed within search warrant were nonetheless validly seized pursuant to “plain view seizure” doctrine), cert. denied , 520 U.S. 1198 (1997); State v. Haley , 811 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rossgreen2 sentences2005See State v. Ross , 32 S.W.3d 853, 855-56 (Tex. Crim. 2005See State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855-56 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Hudson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Hudson v. State, 588 S.W.2d 348, 353 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Ramirez v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Martinez, 17 S.W.3d at 685 (holding, “We agree with the State that the gun belt was properly obtained [from the appellant’s vehicle] under the plain view seizure doctrine”); Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (recognizing items not encompassed within search warrant were nonetheless validly seized pursuant to “plain view seizure” doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 , 117 S.Ct. 1556 , 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997); State v. Haley, 811 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding, “It has been very well settled that items in “plain view” may be seized by *616 law enforcement | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Triem v. Alaska Bar Ass'n
green
2 sentences2008“The plain view seizure doctrine requires a *270 two-prong showing: (1) that law enforcement officials see an item in plain view at a vantage point where they have the right to be, and (2) it is immediately apparent that the item seized constitutes evidence — that is, there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity.” Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (citing Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 , 117 S.Ct. 1556 , 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997)). 2007See Martinez, 17 S.W.3d at 685 (holding, “We agree with the State that the gun belt was properly obtained [from the appellant’s vehicle] under the plain view seizure doctrine”); Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (recognizing items not encompassed within search warrant were nonetheless validly seized pursuant to “plain view seizure” doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 , 117 S.Ct. 1556 , 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997); State v. Haley, 811 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding, “It has been very well settled that items in “plain view” may be seized by *616 law enforcement | 4 | 2000–2008 |
Steven L. v. Board of Education of Downers Grove Grade School District No. 58
green
2 sentences2008“The plain view seizure doctrine requires a *270 two-prong showing: (1) that law enforcement officials see an item in plain view at a vantage point where they have the right to be, and (2) it is immediately apparent that the item seized constitutes evidence — that is, there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity.” Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (citing Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 , 117 S.Ct. 1556 , 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997)). 2007See Martinez, 17 S.W.3d at 685 (holding, “We agree with the State that the gun belt was properly obtained [from the appellant’s vehicle] under the plain view seizure doctrine”); Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (recognizing items not encompassed within search warrant were nonetheless validly seized pursuant to “plain view seizure” doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 , 117 S.Ct. 1556 , 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997); State v. Haley, 811 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding, “It has been very well settled that items in “plain view” may be seized by *616 law enforcement | 3 | 2000–2008 |
Guerriero v. Lufthansa German Airlines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008“The plain view seizure doctrine requires a *270 two-prong showing: (1) that law enforcement officials see an item in plain view at a vantage point where they have the right to be, and (2) it is immediately apparent that the item seized constitutes evidence — that is, there is probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity.” Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 685 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (citing Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 , 117 S.Ct. 1556 , 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997)). 2007See Martinez, 17 S.W.3d at 685 (holding, “We agree with the State that the gun belt was properly obtained [from the appellant’s vehicle] under the plain view seizure doctrine”); Ramos v. State, 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (recognizing items not encompassed within search warrant were nonetheless validly seized pursuant to “plain view seizure” doctrine), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1198 , 117 S.Ct. 1556 , 137 L.Ed.2d 704 (1997); State v. Haley, 811 S.W.2d 597, 599 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (holding, “It has been very well settled that items in “plain view” may be seized by *616 law enforcement | 3 | 2000–2008 |
Minnesota v. Dickerson
green
2 sentences2015Cruse, at *2. 5 Although Cruse is an unpublished opinion and so is not binding precedent, this Court’s reasoning in Cruse is appropriate in this case, as the facts are very similar to those presented here. - 34 - The Court then invoked the plain view seizure doctrine as the rationale for seizing the phone in Cruse, since in light of what the officer knew at the time, there was probable cause to believe the phone contained incriminating evidence: [I]f police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers hav 2015Cruse, at *2. 5 Although Cruse is an unpublished opinion and so is not binding precedent, this Court’s reasoning in Cruse is appropriate in this case, as the facts are very similar to those presented here. - 34 - The Court then invoked the plain view seizure doctrine as the rationale for seizing the phone in Cruse, since in light of what the officer knew at the time, there was probable cause to believe the phone contained incriminating evidence: [I]f police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers hav | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Horton v. California
green
1 sentence2003Horton v. California , 496 U.S. 128, 136–37 (1990); Ramos v. State , 934 S.W.2d 358, 365 (Tex. Crim . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.