15 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada 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 |
|---|---|---|
Horton v. Californiagreen2 sentences2021See Horton, 496 U.S. at 135 (holding that the plain-view exception applies when "a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object") (citing Harris u. 2021See Horton, 496 U.S. at 135 (holding that the plain-view exception applies when "a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object") (citing Harris u. | 6 | 7 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 253-54 , 681 P.2d 44, 49 (1984) (applying the Coolidge test); see also Johnson v. State, 97 Nev. 621, 624 , 637 P.2d 1209, 1211 (1981). 1999See Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 253-54 , 681 P.2d 44, 49 (1984) (applying the Coolidge test); see also Johnson v. State, 97 Nev. 621, 624 , 637 P.2d 1209, 1211 (1981). | 2 | 3 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences1999The plain view doctrine announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), allows the seizure of objects not specified in a search warrant so long as certain criteria are met: (1) the initial intrusion of the police must be lawful; (2) the police must “inadvertently” discover the incriminating evidence; (3) it must be “immediately apparent” to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime. 1999The plain view doctrine announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), allows the seizure of objects not specified in a search warrant so long as certain criteria are met: (1) the initial intrusion of the police must be lawful; (2) the police must “inadvertently” discover the incriminating evidence; (3) it must be “immediately apparent” to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime. | 1 | 3 |
Carroll v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1999The Supreme Court of the United States has held that probable cause in the context of the plain view doctrine “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 or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false.” Brown, 460 U.S. at 742 (quoting Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 (1925)). | 1 | 1 |
Koza v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 253-54 , 681 P.2d 44, 49 (1984) (applying the Coolidge test); see also Johnson v. State, 97 Nev. 621, 624 , 637 P.2d 1209, 1211 (1981). 1999See Koza v. State, 100 Nev. 245, 253-54 , 681 P.2d 44, 49 (1984) (applying the Coolidge test); see also Johnson v. State, 97 Nev. 621, 624 , 637 P.2d 1209, 1211 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Barnato v. Stategreen2 sentences1981Barnato v. State, 88 Nev. 508, 512 , 501 P.2d 643, 645-46 (1972); see Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466 (1971) (plurality opinion). 1981Barnato v. State, 88 Nev. 508, 512 , 501 P.2d 643, 645-46 (1972); see Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466 (1971) (plurality opinion). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Williams
green
2 sentences2018See Horton, 496 U.S. at 130 ("[E]ven though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate 'plain-view' seizures, it is not a necessary condition."); United States v. Williams, 592 F.3d 511 , 522-23 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2010) (overruling cases requiring "inadvertence" for plain-view seizures due to conflict with Horton). 2018See Horton , 496 U.S. at 130 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ("[E]ven though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate 'plain-view' seizures, it is not a necessary condition."); United States v. Williams, 592 F.3d 511 , 522-23 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2010) (overruling cases requiring "inadvertence" for plain-view seizures due to conflict with Horton ). | 5 | 2018–2018 |
Michigan v. Clifford
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
Texas v. Brown
green
2 sentences1999The Supreme Court of the United States has held that probable cause in the context of the plain view doctrine “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 or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false.” Brown, 460 U.S. at 742 (quoting Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 (1925)). 1984Koza next contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress admission of the murder weapon, because the warrantless seizure of the partially visible gun from under the mattress was not justified by the “plain view doctrine.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s latest pronouncement on the plain view doctrine is set forth in Texas v. Brown, 103 S.Ct. 1535 (1983). | 2 | 1984–1999 |
Harris v. United States
green
2 sentences2021United States, 390 U.S. 234 ; 235- 36 (1968) (holding that an officer was lawfully present for purposes of the plain-view exception when he entered a Car to roll up the windows pursuant to a police department policy concerning impounding vehicles and found incriminating evidence in plain view)). 2021United States, 390 U.S. 234; 235- 36 (1968) (holding that an officer was lawfully present for purposes of the plain-view exception when he entered a Car to roll up the windows pursuant to a police department policy concerning impounding vehicles and found incriminating evidence in plain view)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bennett v. State
green
1 sentence1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.