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.
16 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences1993The gun should be admitted into evidence under the plain-view doctrine as outlined in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). 1993The gun should be admitted into evidence under the plain-view doctrine as outlined in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Eisemangreen2 sentences1984“The plain-view doctrine validates the warrantless seizure of evidence.” State v. Eiseman, R.I., 461 A.2d at 380 (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464-66 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037-38 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 581-83 (1971)). 1984"The plain-view doctrine validates the warrantless seizure of evidence." State v. Eiseman, R.I., 461 A.2d at 380 (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464-66 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037-38 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 581-83 (1971)). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Collinsgreen2 sentences1995As to the plain-view doctrine, we said in State v. Wright, 558 A.2d 946 (R.I.1989), that a police officer “may seize evidence in plain view when ‘(1) the officer was lawfully in the position that allowed him to see the evidence, (2) the officer discovered the evidence inadvertently, and (3) it was immediately apparent to the officer that the object was evidence of criminality.’ ” Id. at 950 (quoting State v. Collins, 543 A.2d 641, 652 (R.I.1988)). 1989A law enforcement official may seize evidence in plain view when “(1) the officer was lawfully in the position that allowed him to see the evidence, (2) the officer discovered the evidence inadvertently, and (3) it was immediately apparent to the officer that the object was evidence of criminality.” State v. Collins, 543 A.2d 641, 652 (R.I.1988) (quoting State v. Eiseman, 461 A.2d 369, 379 (R.I.1983)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Prattgreen2 sentences2003“The plain-view doctrine allows seizure of evidence that is openly on display when an officer, who is lawfully in a position to see the evidence and to have lawful access to it, immediately recognizes that the object is evidence of criminality.” State v. Pratt, 641 A.2d 732, 738 (R.I.1994). 1998"The plain view doctrine allows seizure of evidence that is openly on display when an officer who is lawfully in position to see the evidence and to have lawful access to it, immediately recognizes that the object is evidence of criminality." State v. Pratt , 641 A.2d 732 , 738 (R.I. 1994). | 1 | 3 |
Texas v. Browngreen2 sentences2004Pratt, 641 A.2d at 738 (citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)). 7 In a plain-view seizure case, probable cause “merely requires that the facts available to the officer would ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief * * * that certain items may be * * * useful as evidence of a crime.” Pratt, 641 A.2d at 738 (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983)). 1994The Court, in Brown , delineated that this prong of the plain-view doctrine can be satisfied whenever “ ‘there is probable cause to associate the property [in plain view] with criminal activity.’” Id. at 741-42, 103 S.Ct. at 1543, 75 L.Ed.2d at 513 . | 1 | 2 |
Horton v. Californiagreen2 sentences1994The plain-view doctrine allows seizure of evidence that is openly on display when an officer, who is lawfully in a position to see the evidence and to have lawful access to it, immediately recognizes that the object is evidence of criminality. 2 Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 , 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2308 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112, 123 (1990). 1994The plain-view doctrine allows seizure of evidence that is openly on display when an officer, who is lawfully in a position to see the evidence and to have lawful access to it, immediately recognizes that the object is evidence of criminality. 2 Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 , 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2308 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112, 123 (1990). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Apalakisgreen1 sentence2010Before this Court at oral argument, defendant did not challenge the trial justice’s ruling that exigent circumstances justified the initial warrantless entry and protective sweep of Ms. Alvarez’s apartment. 1 Standard of Review “In reviewing the trial justice’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating * * * evidence, we defer to the factual findings of the trial justice, applying a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.” State v. Apalakis, 797 A.2d 440, 443 (R.I.2002) (quoting State v. Page, 709 A.2d 1042, 1044 (R.I.1998)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Portesgreen1 sentence2010See State v. Portes, 840 A.2d 1131, 1138 (R.I.2004) (explaining that “a police officer may seize evidence in plain view when he is lawfully in a position that allows him to see the evidence and it is immediately apparent to the officer that the object is evidence of criminality”). 14 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pagegreen1 sentence2010Before this Court at oral argument, defendant did not challenge the trial justice’s ruling that exigent circumstances justified the initial warrantless entry and protective sweep of Ms. Alvarez’s apartment. 1 Standard of Review “In reviewing the trial justice’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating * * * evidence, we defer to the factual findings of the trial justice, applying a ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.” State v. Apalakis, 797 A.2d 440, 443 (R.I.2002) (quoting State v. Page, 709 A.2d 1042, 1044 (R.I.1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Haydengreen2 sentences2007Joseph, 114 R.I. at 604 , 337 A.2d at 528 ; see also Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 307 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) (holding that items of clothing found in a house searched by the police without a warrant were properly seized where they matched the description of the clothing worn by the culprit and where the police could reasonably have *576 believed that the items seized would aid in the identification of the criminal). 2007Joseph, 114 R.I. at 604 , 337 A.2d at 528 ; see also Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 307 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) (holding that items of clothing found in a house searched by the police without a warrant were properly seized where they matched the description of the clothing worn by the culprit and where the police could reasonably have *576 believed that the items seized would aid in the identification of the criminal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cobbgreen2 sentences1994Accord Brown, 460 U.S. at 737 , 103 S.Ct. at 1540-41, 75 L.Ed.2d at 510 ; Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 464-73 , 91 S.Ct. at 2037-42 , 29 L.Ed.2d at 581-87 ; State v. Cobb, 494 A.2d 1182, 1184-85 (R.I. 1985); State v. Eiseman, 461 A.2d 369, 379 (R.I.1983). 1994Accord Cobb, 494 A.2d at 1185 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Alexander Robert Holzman, United States of America v. James Walshgreen1 sentence1994United States v. Holzman, 871 F.2d 1496, 1512-13 (9th Cir.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimmsgreen2 sentences1993“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ ” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331, 335 (1977). 1993“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ ” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330, 332 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331, 335 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Walter v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1983He wrote: “Even though some circumstances — -for example, if the results of the private search are in plain view when materials are turned over to the Government — may justify the Government’s reexamination of the materials, surely the Government may not exceed the scope of the private search unless it has the right to make an independent search.” Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. at 657, 100 S.Ct. at 2402 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 418 . 4 In the case before us, the DEA agent could properly reexamine the contents of the package to the extent that they were exposed by the search previously conducted by t 1983He wrote: “Even though some circumstances — -for example, if the results of the private search are in plain view when materials are turned over to the Government — may justify the Government’s reexamination of the materials, surely the Government may not exceed the scope of the private search unless it has the right to make an independent search.” Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. at 657, 100 S.Ct. at 2402 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 418 . 4 In the case before us, the DEA agent could properly reexamine the contents of the package to the extent that they were exposed by the search previously conducted by t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Joseph
green
2 sentences2007Joseph, 114 R.I. at 604 , 337 A.2d at 528 ; see also Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 307 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) (holding that items of clothing found in a house searched by the police without a warrant were properly seized where they matched the description of the clothing worn by the culprit and where the police could reasonably have *576 believed that the items seized would aid in the identification of the criminal). 2007Joseph, 114 R.I. at 604 , 337 A.2d at 528 ; see also Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 307 , 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) (holding that items of clothing found in a house searched by the police without a warrant were properly seized where they matched the description of the clothing worn by the culprit and where the police could reasonably have *576 believed that the items seized would aid in the identification of the criminal). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Wright
green
2 sentences1995As to the plain-view doctrine, we said in State v. Wright, 558 A.2d 946 (R.I.1989), that a police officer “may seize evidence in plain view when ‘(1) the officer was lawfully in the position that allowed him to see the evidence, (2) the officer discovered the evidence inadvertently, and (3) it was immediately apparent to the officer that the object was evidence of criminality.’ ” Id. at 950 (quoting State v. Collins, 543 A.2d 641, 652 (R.I.1988)). 1995As to the plain-view doctrine, we said in State v. Wright, 558 A.2d 946 (R.I.1989), that a police officer “may seize evidence in plain view when ‘(1) the officer was lawfully in the position that allowed him to see the evidence, (2) the officer discovered the evidence inadvertently, and (3) it was immediately apparent to the officer that the object was evidence of criminality.’ ” Id. at 950 (quoting State v. Collins, 543 A.2d 641, 652 (R.I.1988)). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
United States v. John Spilotro Herbert Blitzstein and Joseph C. Blasko
green
1 sentence1994In that case the court never reached the issue of whether the plain-view doctrine could justify seizure under a redacted warrant because the court found no basis to sever the warrant. 800 F.2d at 967 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Kowal
green
1 sentence1994Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 583 (1971); Kowal, 423 A.2d at 1382 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Illinois v. Andreas
green
2 sentences1984In its reply brief, the state tacitly embraced the plain-view exception in its discussion of Illinois v. Andreas, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3319 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983), as farther justification for the chemical testing. . 1984In its reply brief, the state tacitly embraced the plain-view exception in its discussion of Illinois v. Andreas, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3319 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983), as farther justification for the chemical testing. . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Ramon Rodriguez and Michael Buttigieg
green
1 sentence1983Relying on the Sixth Circuit court’s opinion in United States v. Rodriguez, 596 F.2d 169 (6th Cir.1979), the state, asserts, however, that the plain-view doctrine justified the field test of the white powder. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Marshall
green
1 sentence1980Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466-68 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038-39 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 583-84 (1971); State v. Marshall, R.I., 387 A.2d at 1048 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
United States v. Theo Donald McDaniel
green
1 sentence1978United States v. McDaniel, supra at 218 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1974App. 584 , 292 A.2d 762 (1972); State v. Wilson, supra. The defendant does not even tangentially question the applicability of the plain-view exception, but contends instead that the seizure of the .38-caliber pistol was constitutionally invalid under the line of cases which condemns, absent unusual exigencies, a full search of a person or his automobile following a custody arrest for a minor traffic violation. 6 That contention is clearly inapposite, for here we are not concerned with Detective Vespia’s right to conduct a full search of defendant’s automobile, but with the arresting officer’s | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence1974App. 584 , 292 A.2d 762 (1972); State v. Wilson, supra. The defendant does not even tangentially question the applicability of the plain-view exception, but contends instead that the seizure of the .38-caliber pistol was constitutionally invalid under the line of cases which condemns, absent unusual exigencies, a full search of a person or his automobile following a custody arrest for a minor traffic violation. 6 That contention is clearly inapposite, for here we are not concerned with Detective Vespia’s right to conduct a full search of defendant’s automobile, but with the arresting officer’s | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.