plain view doctrine in Washington

2022See, e.g., Murray, 84 Wn.2d at 534 (holding the plain view exception did not apply when the officers tilted a television to read serial numbers that would prove the television was illegally acquired). 3 No. 99546-0 Madsen, J., concurring Unlike Morgan, where the majority determined the officer’s search was justified based on the surrounding circumstances, Morgan, 193 Wn.2d at 372 , the majority here correctly requires the officer to have immediate, apparent knowledge that there was incriminating evidence before them.

2016NO MANIPULATION Citing State v. Murray, 84 Wn.2d 527 , 527 P.2d 1303 (1974), Schwartz also argues that the plain view exception to the warrant requirement does not apply because, rather than immediately recognize the contraband, Trooper Hicks had to “manipulate” the suspected material by picking up the straw to determine whether it contained drugs.

2020This recognition is at the core of the plain view doctrine.” State v. Lair, 95 Wn.2d 706, 719 , 630 P.2d 427 (1981).

2020This recognition is at the core of the plain view doctrine.” State v. Lair, 95 Wn.2d 706, 719 , 630 P.2d 427 (1981).

2018State v. Temple, 170 Wn.

2013State v. Temple, 170 Wn.

2016App. 644, 646 , 490 P.2d 123 (1971) (officer’s use of a flashlight to see contraband inside vehicle from lawful vantage point did not transform an otherwise lawful search under the plain view doctrine into an unlawful search) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 422 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 1970)); see also State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 398-399 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996) (holding that use of a flashlight to see items left in plain sight, visible through an unobstructed window did not transform an observation that would fall within the open view doctrine during the daylight into an impermissible searc

2014See State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 399, 401 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996) (no constitutional violation when police officer looked through an unobstructed window of a home while standing on the front porch).

2016App. 644, 646 , 490 P.2d 123 (1971) (officer’s use of a flashlight to see contraband inside vehicle from lawful vantage point did not transform an otherwise lawful search under the plain view doctrine into an unlawful search) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 422 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 1970)); see also State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 398-399 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996) (holding that use of a flashlight to see items left in plain sight, visible through an unobstructed window did not transform an observation that would fall within the open view doctrine during the daylight into an impermissible searc

2014See State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 399, 401 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996) (no constitutional violation when police officer looked through an unobstructed window of a home while standing on the front porch).

1985Thus, while the actions of the officers in Sharpe and Johns received sanction, the Court refused to permit the 90-min-ute warrantless detention of luggage in Place. 10 See also State v. Chrisman, 100 Wn.2d 814 , 676 P.2d 419 (1984) as to the continued vitality of the plain view exception. 11 In United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 , 77 L.

1985Thus, while the actions of the officers in Sharpe and Johns received sanction, the Court refused to permit the 90-min-ute warrantless detention of luggage in Place. 10 See also State v. Chrisman, 100 Wn.2d 814 , 676 P.2d 419 (1984) as to the continued vitality of the plain view exception. 11 In United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 , 77 L.

2023On these bases, the court held that the officers were justified in reading and running the serial number. 3 “The plain view doctrine applies ‘when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity.’ ” State v. Morgan, 193 Wn.2d 365, 370 , 440 P.3d 136 (2019) (quoting State v. Hatchie, 161 Wn.2d 390, 395 , 166 P.3d 698 (2007)). 4 The trial court did not appear to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the CrR 3.6 hearing. 5 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ,

2021The plain view doctrine applies “ ‘when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity.’ ” Morgan, 193 Wn.2d at 370 (quoting State v. Hatchie, 161 Wn.2d 390, 395 , 166 P.3d 698 (2007)), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1243 , 206 L.

2020State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 582 , 62 P.3d 489 (2003); see also Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 523, 538 , 936 P.2d 1123 (1997) (failure to conduct a Gunwall 8 analysis or show why the state constitutional provision should be interpreted differently than the federal results in court interpreting the state constitutional clause coextensively with its parallel federal counterpart); Justice Charles W.

2016App. 644, 646 , 490 P.2d 123 (1971) (officer’s use of a flashlight to see contraband inside vehicle from lawful vantage point did not transform an otherwise lawful search under the plain view doctrine into an unlawful search) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 422 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 1970)); see also State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 398-399 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996) (holding that use of a flashlight to see items left in plain sight, visible through an unobstructed window did not transform an observation that would fall within the open view doctrine during the daylight into an impermissible searc

2019See State v. Johnson , 104 Wash. App. 489 , 501-02, 17 P.3d 3 (2001) (discussing Hicks , 480 U.S. at 328 -29 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 (manipulating stereo equipment that an officer reasonably suspects may be incriminating evidence to determine the serial number, which would give the officer probable cause, constitutes an unlawful search under the plain view doctrine)). ¶25 While we have generally recognized that "a policeman in the course of a valid search is entitled to keep his senses open to the possibility of ... evidence of a crime," Lair, 95 Wash.2d at 719 , 630 P.2d 427 , we have never suggeste

2019See State v. Johnson , 104 Wash. App. 489 , 501-02, 17 P.3d 3 (2001) (discussing Hicks , 480 U.S. at 328 -29 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 (manipulating stereo equipment that an officer reasonably suspects may be incriminating evidence to determine the serial number, which would give the officer probable cause, constitutes an unlawful search under the plain view doctrine)). ¶25 While we have generally recognized that "a policeman in the course of a valid search is entitled to keep his senses open to the possibility of ... evidence of a crime," Lair, 95 Wash.2d at 719 , 630 P.2d 427 , we have never suggeste

2023On these bases, the court held that the officers were justified in reading and running the serial number. 3 “The plain view doctrine applies ‘when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity.’ ” State v. Morgan, 193 Wn.2d 365, 370 , 440 P.3d 136 (2019) (quoting State v. Hatchie, 161 Wn.2d 390, 395 , 166 P.3d 698 (2007)). 4 The trial court did not appear to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the CrR 3.6 hearing. 5 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ,

2021The plain view doctrine applies “ ‘when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity.’ ” Morgan, 193 Wn.2d at 370 (quoting State v. Hatchie, 161 Wn.2d 390, 395 , 166 P.3d 698 (2007)), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1243 , 206 L.

2019We have said the plain view doctrine applies "when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity." State v. Hatchie, 161 Wash.2d 390 , 395, 166 P.3d 698 (2007) (citing State v. Myers, 117 Wash.2d 332 , 346, 815 P.2d 761 (1991) ).

2019We have said the plain view doctrine applies "when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity." State v. Hatchie, 161 Wash.2d 390 , 395, 166 P.3d 698 (2007) (citing State v. Myers, 117 Wash.2d 332 , 346, 815 P.2d 761 (1991) ).

2020State v. O’Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 582 , 62 P.3d 489 (2003); see also Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 523, 538 , 936 P.2d 1123 (1997) (failure to conduct a Gunwall 8 analysis or show why the state constitutional provision should be interpreted differently than the federal results in court interpreting the state constitutional clause coextensively with its parallel federal counterpart); Justice Charles W.

2016App. 644, 646 , 490 P.2d 123 (1971) (officer’s use of a flashlight to see contraband inside vehicle from lawful vantage point did not transform an otherwise lawful search under the plain view doctrine into an unlawful search) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 422 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 1970)); see also State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 398-399 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996) (holding that use of a flashlight to see items left in plain sight, visible through an unobstructed window did not transform an observation that would fall within the open view doctrine during the daylight into an impermissible searc

2013At the very least, “[u]nder the plain view doctrine, an officer must: (1) have a prior justification for the intrusion; (2) inadvertently discover the incriminating evidence; and (3) immediately recognize the item as contraband.” State v. Myers, 117 Wn.2d 332, 346 , 815 P.2d 761 (1991) (citing State v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1, 13 , 726 P.2d 445 (1986)).

2013At the very least, “[u]nder the plain view doctrine, an officer must: (1) have a prior justification for the intrusion; (2) inadvertently discover the incriminating evidence; and (3) immediately recognize the item as contraband.” State v. Myers, 117 Wn.2d 332, 346 , 815 P.2d 761 (1991) (citing State v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1, 13 , 726 P.2d 445 (1986)).

2026State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 901-02 , 632 P.2d 44 (1981); see also State v. Littlefair, 129 Wn.

1982Such a rule would contradict the first requirement in Daugherty that the officer have a prior justification for the intrusion, id. at 267 , when conducting an investigation of apparently clandestine activity that discloses evidence in "plain view." Because such investigations necessarily demand an inquiring and cautious disposition on the part of the officer involved, the term "inadvertent," in the context of the plain view doctrine, simply means that the officer discovered the evidence while in a position that does not infringe upon any reasonable expectation of privacy, and did not take any

2023On these bases, the court held that the officers were justified in reading and running the serial number. 3 “The plain view doctrine applies ‘when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity.’ ” State v. Morgan, 193 Wn.2d 365, 370 , 440 P.3d 136 (2019) (quoting State v. Hatchie, 161 Wn.2d 390, 395 , 166 P.3d 698 (2007)). 4 The trial court did not appear to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the CrR 3.6 hearing. 5 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ,

2023On these bases, the court held that the officers were justified in reading and running the serial number. 3 “The plain view doctrine applies ‘when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity.’ ” State v. Morgan, 193 Wn.2d 365, 370 , 440 P.3d 136 (2019) (quoting State v. Hatchie, 161 Wn.2d 390, 395 , 166 P.3d 698 (2007)). 4 The trial court did not appear to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the CrR 3.6 hearing. 5 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ,

2023On these bases, the court held that the officers were justified in reading and running the serial number. 3 “The plain view doctrine applies ‘when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity.’ ” State v. Morgan, 193 Wn.2d 365, 370 , 440 P.3d 136 (2019) (quoting State v. Hatchie, 161 Wn.2d 390, 395 , 166 P.3d 698 (2007)). 4 The trial court did not appear to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the CrR 3.6 hearing. 5 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ,

2023On these bases, the court held that the officers were justified in reading and running the serial number. 3 “The plain view doctrine applies ‘when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity.’ ” State v. Morgan, 193 Wn.2d 365, 370 , 440 P.3d 136 (2019) (quoting State v. Hatchie, 161 Wn.2d 390, 395 , 166 P.3d 698 (2007)). 4 The trial court did not appear to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the CrR 3.6 hearing. 5 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ,

2016App. 644, 646 , 490 P.2d 123 (1971) (officer’s use of a flashlight to see contraband inside vehicle from lawful vantage point did not transform an otherwise lawful search under the plain view doctrine into an unlawful search) (quoting Marshall v. United States, 422 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 1970)); see also State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 398-399 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996) (holding that use of a flashlight to see items left in plain sight, visible through an unobstructed window did not transform an observation that would fall within the open view doctrine during the daylight into an impermissible searc

1975The State makes two main contentions: (1) that discovery of the contraband gambling paraphernalia falls within the "plain view" doctrine and (2) that the initial stop of defendant's automobile was a permissible "investigative detention" within the doctrine of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968). [1] The plain view doctrine comes into play only when the officer "has a right to be in a position to have that view." State v. Cagle, 5 Wn.

1979App. 405, 410-11 , 487 P.2d 627 (1971) as restated in State v. Campbell, supra at 729 is apposite: [W]e held the plain view doctrine applicable where the evidence seized was inside of a brown bag, and thus technically not "immediately" known to be evidence, where the officers had, as they did here, probable cause to believe that incriminating evidence was contained therein.

1979App. 405, 410-11 , 487 P.2d 627 (1971) as restated in State v. Campbell, supra at 729 is apposite: [W]e held the plain view doctrine applicable where the evidence seized was inside of a brown bag, and thus technically not "immediately" known to be evidence, where the officers had, as they did here, probable cause to believe that incriminating evidence was contained therein.