plain view doctrine in Delaware

2020Cir. Apr. 7, 2016) (citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 739–40 (1983)). 11 Maddrey’s car “trenched upon no right secured to the latter by the Fourth Amendment.”30 There is no expectation of privacy “shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers.”31 An item is in plain view “when it is discoverable by police officers in the normal course of their investigative duties.”32 “The plain view doctrine thus is not inconsistent with concealment from ordinary observation because the latte

1988However, in Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (plurality opinion), the Justices of the-Supreme Court were sharply divided on the issue of whether inadvertence is required for application of the plain view doctrine.

2025The Court focused primarily on the doctrine's requirements that the officer lawfully be in a position to observe the contraband and that the evidentiary value of the item be immediately apparent.” Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 987 (Del. 2004) (citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 737 (1983)). 6 solely from their own experience with how buyers interact with sellers and the fact that the rear of the Wawa parking lot is sometimes used to facilitate drug transactions.

2022Plain View Another well- and long-accepted exception is the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence in their direct observation.40 A warrantless seizure is valid under the plain view doctrine if the State can establish that: “(1) the officer 36 See Hall v. State, 14 A.3d 512, 515-18 (Del. 2011). 37 Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *2 (citing Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403, 406 (Del. 2007)). 38 Guererri, 922 A.2d at 406 . 39 See Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *3. 40 Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 985 (Del. 2004). -9- is lawfully in a position to observe the [item], (2) the

2022Plain View Another well- and long-accepted exception is the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence in their direct observation.40 A warrantless seizure is valid under the plain view doctrine if the State can establish that: “(1) the officer 36 See Hall v. State, 14 A.3d 512, 515-18 (Del. 2011). 37 Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *2 (citing Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403, 406 (Del. 2007)). 38 Guererri, 922 A.2d at 406 . 39 See Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *3. 40 Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 985 (Del. 2004). -9- is lawfully in a position to observe the [item], (2) the

2022Plain View Another well- and long-accepted exception is the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence in their direct observation.40 A warrantless seizure is valid under the plain view doctrine if the State can establish that: “(1) the officer 36 See Hall v. State, 14 A.3d 512, 515-18 (Del. 2011). 37 Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *2 (citing Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403, 406 (Del. 2007)). 38 Guererri, 922 A.2d at 406 . 39 See Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *3. 40 Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 985 (Del. 2004). -9- is lawfully in a position to observe the [item], (2) the

2020Challenging the trial court’s 38 Id. 39 Id. 0 Id. at 947 (quoting Smith, 528 U.S. 285 ). ‘ Backus v. State at *1. @ Id. at *2 (quoting Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 758 A.2d 485, 492 (Del. 2000) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessimer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985)). 12 application of the plain view doctrine would have been a fool’s errand.

2020Id, at 947 (quoting Smith, 528 U.S. 285 ). ‘| Backus v. State at *1. 2 Iq. at *2 (quoting Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 758 A.2d 485, 492 (Del. 2000) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessimer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985)). 12 application of the plain view doctrine would have been a fool’s errand.

2020Challenging the trial court’s 38 Id. 39 Id. 0 Id. at 947 (quoting Smith, 528 U.S. 285 ). ‘ Backus v. State at *1. @ Id. at *2 (quoting Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 758 A.2d 485, 492 (Del. 2000) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessimer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985)). 12 application of the plain view doctrine would have been a fool’s errand.

2020Id, at 947 (quoting Smith, 528 U.S. 285 ). ‘| Backus v. State at *1. 2 Iq. at *2 (quoting Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 758 A.2d 485, 492 (Del. 2000) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessimer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985)). 12 application of the plain view doctrine would have been a fool’s errand.

2023So we made entry into the house.”). 37 See State v. Henderson, 892 A.2d 1061, 1066 (Del. 2006) (“The plain view doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for searches and seizures.

2022Plain View Another well- and long-accepted exception is the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence in their direct observation.40 A warrantless seizure is valid under the plain view doctrine if the State can establish that: “(1) the officer 36 See Hall v. State, 14 A.3d 512, 515-18 (Del. 2011). 37 Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *2 (citing Guererri v. State, 922 A.2d 403, 406 (Del. 2007)). 38 Guererri, 922 A.2d at 406 . 39 See Roundtree, 2017 WL 4457207 , at *3. 40 Hardin v. State, 844 A.2d 982, 985 (Del. 2004). -9- is lawfully in a position to observe the [item], (2) the

2020Kashner’s shining a flashlight to illuminate the interior of 26 Holmes, 2015 WL 5168374 , at *9. 27 Hardin, 844 A.2d 982, 985 (Del. 2004) (quoting Williamson v. State, 707 A.2d 350, 358 (Del. 1998)). 28 Id. 29 Hawkins, 646 Fed.Appx. 254, 257, n. 5 (3d.

2020Kashner’s shining a flashlight to illuminate the interior of 26 Holmes, 2015 WL 5168374 , at *9. 27 Hardin, 844 A.2d 982, 985 (Del. 2004) (quoting Williamson v. State, 707 A.2d 350, 358 (Del. 1998)). 28 Id. 29 Hawkins, 646 Fed.Appx. 254, 257, n. 5 (3d.

2020Kashner’s shining a flashlight to illuminate the interior of 26 Holmes, 2015 WL 5168374 , at *9. 27 Hardin, 844 A.2d 982, 985 (Del. 2004) (quoting Williamson v. State, 707 A.2d 350, 358 (Del. 1998)). 28 Id. 29 Hawkins, 646 Fed.Appx. 254, 257, n. 5 (3d.

2019With his consent, Defendant authorized the police to search his Cell Phone for three specific phone numbers and any evidence that could reasonably fall under the purview of the plain view doctrine.** Defendant’s limited consent does not cure any of the alleged deficiencies in Warrants B and C. 33 See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991) (“The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect’s consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of ‘objective’ reasonableness—what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?”).

2019The Court notes that the parties have not informed the Court of the information that was obtained during the officers’ initial, consent-based search of Defendant’s Cell Phone; therefore, the Court’s finding is based on the small amount of information available to it. 34 The requirements of the plain view doctrine are discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990). 17 B. _ First Motion In Defendant’s First Motion, he argues that Warrant C does not state with particularity the things to be seized, is overly broad, and has an unreasonable time limit.

2019The Court notes that the parties have not informed the Court of the information that was obtained during the officers’ initial, consent-based search of Defendant’s Cell Phone; therefore, the Court’s finding is based on the small amount of information available to it. 34 The requirements of the plain view doctrine are discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990). 17 B. _ First Motion In Defendant’s First Motion, he argues that Warrant C does not state with particularity the things to be seized, is overly broad, and has an unreasonable time limit.

2015“A law enforcement officer may seize, without a warrant, contraband that the officer observes in plain view, but only if (1) the officer is lawfully in a position to observe the 5 Holden v. State, 23 A.3d 843, 846 (Del. 2011). 6 1d. 7 1d. 8 Jones v. Stale, 745 A.2d 856, 860 (Del. 1999). 4 contraband, (2) the item’s evidentiary value is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the item.”9 (8) McDougal’s claim is unavailing.

2015“A law enforcement officer may seize, without a warrant, contraband that the officer observes in plain view, but only if (1) the officer is lawfully in a position to observe the 5 Holden v. State, 23 A.3d 843, 846 (Del. 2011). 6 1d. 7 1d. 8 Jones v. Stale, 745 A.2d 856, 860 (Del. 1999). 4 contraband, (2) the item’s evidentiary value is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the item.”9 (8) McDougal’s claim is unavailing.

2009The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule on whether the seizures comported with the plain view exception. [132] 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). [133] 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [134] We do agree with the Majority's holding on the trial judge's ruling on the Motion to Suppress. [135] See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 , 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 ; 476, 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145

2009The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule on whether the seizures comported with the plain view exception. [132] 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). [133] 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [134] We do agree with the Majority's holding on the trial judge's ruling on the Motion to Suppress. [135] See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 , 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 ; 476, 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145

2009The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule on whether the seizures comported with the plain view exception. [132] 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). [133] 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [134] We do agree with the Majority's holding on the trial judge's ruling on the Motion to Suppress. [135] See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 , 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 ; 476, 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145

2009The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule on whether the seizures comported with the plain view exception. [132] 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). [133] 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [134] We do agree with the Majority's holding on the trial judge's ruling on the Motion to Suppress. [135] See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 , 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 ; 476, 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145

2009The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule on whether the seizures comported with the plain view exception. [132] 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). [133] 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [134] We do agree with the Majority's holding on the trial judge's ruling on the Motion to Suppress. [135] See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 , 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 ; 476, 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145

2009The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule on whether the seizures comported with the plain view exception. [132] 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). [133] 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [134] We do agree with the Majority's holding on the trial judge's ruling on the Motion to Suppress. [135] See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 , 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 ; 476, 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145

2009The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rule on whether the seizures comported with the plain view exception. [132] 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). [133] 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). [134] We do agree with the Majority's holding on the trial judge's ruling on the Motion to Suppress. [135] See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 , 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 ; 476, 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145

1992Wicks v. State, Del.Supr., 552 A.2d 462, 465 (1988) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)).

1988See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 742-43 , 103 S.Ct. at 1543 , 75 L.Ed.2d at 514 (in determining whether police had probable cause for seizure of item, court may consider experience and knowledge of police officer); Mezzatesta v. State, Del.Supr., 166 A.2d 433, 437 (1960) (in determining whether probable cause existed for issuance of a warrant, judge may consider the experience and special knowledge of police); State v.Reader, Del.Super., 328 A.2d 146, 148 (1974) (in order to ascertain whether probable cause existed to support intrusion, court must consider sum total of all information including

1988See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. at 742-43 , 103 S.Ct. at 1543 , 75 L.Ed.2d at 514 (in determining whether police had probable cause for seizure of item, court may consider experience and knowledge of police officer); Mezzatesta v. State, Del.Supr., 166 A.2d 433, 437 (1960) (in determining whether probable cause existed for issuance of a warrant, judge may consider the experience and special knowledge of police); State v.Reader, Del.Super., 328 A.2d 146, 148 (1974) (in order to ascertain whether probable cause existed to support intrusion, court must consider sum total of all information including