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.
98 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 16 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 sentences2006United States v Bishop, 338 F3d 623, 626-627 (CA 6, 2003) (stating that the plain view exception permits the warrantless seizure of objects dangerous in *308 themselves), citing Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 472 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971) (plurality opinion). 2006United States v Bishop, 338 F3d 623, 626-627 (CA 6, 2003) (stating that the plain view exception permits the warrantless seizure of objects dangerous in *308 themselves), citing Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 472 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971) (plurality opinion). | 6 | 21 |
People v. Championgreen2 sentences2026“The plain view doctrine allows police officers to seize, without a warrant, items in plain view if the officers are lawfully in a position from which they view the item, and if the item’s incriminating character is immediately apparent.” People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 101 ; 549 NW2d 849 (1996). 2026“The plain view doctrine allows police officers to seize, without a warrant, items in plain view if the officers are lawfully in a position from which they view the item, and if the item’s incriminating character is immediately apparent.” People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 101 ; 549 NW2d 849 (1996). | 3 | 36 |
Horton v. Californiagreen2 sentences2017The seizure of an item pursuant to the plain view exception “is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the ‘plain view’ doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.” Horton v California, 496 US 128, 136 ; 110 S Ct 2301, 2307 ; 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2017The seizure of an item pursuant to the plain view exception “is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the ‘plain view’ doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.” Horton v California, 496 US 128, 136 ; 110 S Ct 2301, 2307 ; 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 11 |
Minnesota v. Dickersongreen2 sentences2024Under the plain-view doctrine, “if police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant.” Minnesota v Dickerson, 508 US 366, 375 ; 113 S Ct 2130 ; 124 L Ed 2d 334 (1993); see also Champion, 452 Mich at 104 . 2024Under the plain-view doctrine, “if police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant.” Minnesota v Dickerson, 508 US 366, 375 ; 113 S Ct 2130 ; 124 L Ed 2d 334 (1993); see also Champion, 452 Mich at 104 . | 3 | 4 |
Arizona v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2004The Supreme Court held that the plain view doctrine “ ‘may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.’ ” Id. at 328 , quoting Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 466 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971). 2003Defendant, relying on Arizona v Hicks, 480 US 321 ; 107 S Ct 1149 ; 94 L Ed 2d 347 (1987), argues that the plain-view doctrine does not apply because the incriminating character of the vehicles was not immediately apparent and that the officer discovered incriminating information only after he began the search. | 2 | 7 |
Harris v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1982As the Supreme Court stated in Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 19, fn 16 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968): "Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a 'seizure’ has occurred.” 18 Harris v United States, 390 US 234, 236 ; 88 S Ct 992 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067 (1968). 19 None of the justices in Coolidge disputed this limitation. 403 US 490 (Harlan, J., concurring); p 492 (Burger, C.J., dissenting in part and concurring in part); p 493 (Black, J., concurring and dissenting); p 510 (White, J., concurring 1982As the Supreme Court stated in Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 19, fn 16 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968): "Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a 'seizure’ has occurred.” 18 Harris v United States, 390 US 234, 236 ; 88 S Ct 992 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067 (1968). 19 None of the justices in Coolidge disputed this limitation. 403 US 490 (Harlan, J., concurring); p 492 (Burger, C.J., dissenting in part and concurring in part); p 493 (Black, J., concurring and dissenting); p 510 (White, J., concurring | 2 | 6 |
People v. Mahdigreen2 sentences2020“The plain view exception to the warrant requirement allows a police officer to seize items in plain view if the officer is lawfully in the position to have that view and the evidence is obviously incriminatory.” People v Mahdi, 317 Mich App 446, 462 ; 894 NW2d 732 (2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 2020“The plain view exception to the warrant requirement allows a police officer to seize items in plain view if the officer is lawfully in the position to have that view and the evidence is obviously incriminatory.” People v Mahdi, 317 Mich App 446, 462 ; 894 NW2d 732 (2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 5 |
People v. Gallowaygreen2 sentences2018In addition, under the plain-view exception, police officers may seize evidence “in plain view if the officer is lawfully in the position to have that view and the evidence is obviously incriminatory.” People v Galloway, 259 Mich App 634, 639 ; 675 NW2d 883 (2003). 2018In addition, under the plain-view exception, police officers may seize evidence “in plain view if the officer is lawfully in the position to have that view and the evidence is obviously incriminatory.” People v Galloway, 259 Mich App 634, 639 ; 675 NW2d 883 (2003). | 1 | 11 |
Texas v. Browngreen2 sentences2018If his vantage point was not within a constitutionally protected area, his observation using only his normal vision to see that which was open to public gaze, was permissible under the open view doctrine. [Citations and quotation marks omitted.] The Idaho court relied in part on Texas v. Brown , 460 U.S. 730 , 739, 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed. 2d 502 (1983), wherein the United States Supreme Court indicated that the plain-view doctrine provides a basis to seize an item when the officer's access to the object had some previous justification under the Fourth Amendment. 2018If his vantage point was not within a constitutionally protected area, his observation using only his normal vision to see that which was open to public gaze, was permissible under the open view doctrine. [Citations and quotation marks omitted.] The Idaho court relied in part on Texas v. Brown , 460 U.S. 730 , 739, 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed. 2d 502 (1983), wherein the United States Supreme Court indicated that the plain-view doctrine provides a basis to seize an item when the officer's access to the object had some previous justification under the Fourth Amendment. | 1 | 5 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2025To resolve this case, we must also consider whether the gun was found in plain view during an otherwise constitutional investigatory stop pursuant to Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), and thus admissible under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement. 2025To resolve this case, we must also consider whether the gun was found in plain view during an otherwise constitutional investigatory stop pursuant to Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), and thus admissible under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Trudeaugreen2 sentences2024Id. at 280 . 1973Upholding the seizure without a warrant in this case does not conflict with the decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court in Trudeau, supra, and Eddington, supra. The rationale of the Trudeau case for not applying the plain view doctrine to a seizure of shoes worn by an in-custody defendant was that there was no probable cause to seize the shoes, only a mere suspicion. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Kuntzegreen2 sentences1981See, e.g., Whalen, supra, and Kuntze, supra. Therefore, the plain view doctrine applies to this case, and no "search” for Fourth Amendment purposes took place. 1973The plain view rule does not go into hibernation at sunset.” It does not appear to us now that our original holding in Kuntze, supra, was erroneous, or that the rule we espoused then has changed over the last ten years. | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Galavizgreen2 sentences2025But the plain-view exception cannot apply to the officers’ seizure of the Escalade given the prosecution’s concession that the Escalade was parked in the curtilage of respondents’ home.3 3 This concession distinguishes this case from cases like United States v Galaviz, 645 F3d 347, 355-356 (CA 6, 2011), and United States v Coleman, 923 F3d 450, 455-457 (CA 6, 2019), where the Sixth Circuit held that vehicles parked in the driveways of homes were properly seized under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement. 2024Galaviz, 645 F3d at 356 . | 1 | 2 |
| Katz v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Wilkensgreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Hardengreen | 1 | 2 |
| Collins v. Virginiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Ronald Coleman, Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Gurczynskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Galpingreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Sparksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Wesley Dale Bishopgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Dunngreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bloydgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Haydengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Whalen
green
2 sentences2002See United States v Dunn, 480 US 294, 305 ; 107 S Ct 1134 ; 94 L Ed 2d 326 (1987), and People v Whalen, 390 Mich 672, 678-679 ; 213 NW2d 116 (1973); see also Katz v United States, 389 US 347, 351 ; 88 S Ct 507 ; 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967), and People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 101-103 ; 549 NW2d 849 (1996) (discussing the plain view doctrine generally). 2002See United States v Dunn, 480 US 294, 305 ; 107 S Ct 1134 ; 94 L Ed 2d 326 (1987), and People v Whalen, 390 Mich 672, 678-679 ; 213 NW2d 116 (1973); see also Katz v United States, 389 US 347, 351 ; 88 S Ct 507 ; 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967), and People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 101-103 ; 549 NW2d 849 (1996) (discussing the plain view doctrine generally). | 7 | 1975–2002 |
People v. Kazmierczak
green
2 sentences2025Both the “Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and its counterpart in the Michigan Constitution guarantee the right of persons to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 417 ; 605 NW2d 667 (2000). 2025Both the “Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and its counterpart in the Michigan Constitution guarantee the right of persons to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 417 ; 605 NW2d 667 (2000). | 4 | 2016–2025 |
People v. Cooke
green
2 sentences2020“A seizure without a warrant may be valid under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement where it is shown that (1) the incriminating character of the evidence was immediately apparent and (2) the police had a lawful right of access to the object.” People v Cooke, 194 Mich App 534, 536 ; 487 NW2d 497 (1992). 2020“A seizure without a warrant may be valid under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement where it is shown that (1) the incriminating character of the evidence was immediately apparent and (2) the police had a lawful right of access to the object.” People v Cooke, 194 Mich App 534, 536 ; 487 NW2d 497 (1992). | 4 | 1996–2020 |
People v. Tisi
green
2 sentences1977United States v Lee, 274 US 559 ; 47 S Ct 746 ; 71 L Ed 1202 (1927).” The Supreme Court had previously adopted the following rule in People v Tisi, 384 Mich 214, 218 ; 180 NW2d 801 (1970): "In the recent case of Harris v United States, 390 US 234 ; 88 S Ct 992 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067 (1968), the Court said (p 236): " 'It has long been settled that objects falling in the *552 plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.’ ” Under the plain view doctrine, by which the instant seizure is justified, the most cru 1977United States v Lee, 274 US 559 ; 47 S Ct 746 ; 71 L Ed 1202 (1927).” The Supreme Court had previously adopted the following rule in People v Tisi, 384 Mich 214, 218 ; 180 NW2d 801 (1970): "In the recent case of Harris v United States, 390 US 234 ; 88 S Ct 992 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067 (1968), the Court said (p 236): " 'It has long been settled that objects falling in the *552 plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.’ ” Under the plain view doctrine, by which the instant seizure is justified, the most cru | 4 | 1973–1991 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2018And the officer’s observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer, 248 Mich App at 562 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain view doctrine, Champion, 452 Mich at 101 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 4 “Possession” is an element of felon-in-possession, MCL 750.224f; People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 640 ; 720 NW2d 196 (2006); Johnson, 293 Mich App at 82-83 , and the “carrying” element of CCW has been equated to possessi 2018And the officer’s observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer, 248 Mich App at 562 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain view doctrine, Champion, 452 Mich at 101 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 4 “Possession” is an element of felon-in-possession, MCL 750.224f; People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 640 ; 720 NW2d 196 (2006); Johnson, 293 Mich App at 82-83 , and the “carrying” element of CCW has been equated to possessi | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Minch
green
2 sentences2018And the officer’s observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer, 248 Mich App at 562 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain view doctrine, Champion, 452 Mich at 101 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 4 “Possession” is an element of felon-in-possession, MCL 750.224f; People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 640 ; 720 NW2d 196 (2006); Johnson, 293 Mich App at 82-83 , and the “carrying” element of CCW has been equated to possessi 2018And the officer’s observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer, 248 Mich App at 562 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain view doctrine, Champion, 452 Mich at 101 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 4 “Possession” is an element of felon-in-possession, MCL 750.224f; People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 640 ; 720 NW2d 196 (2006); Johnson, 293 Mich App at 82-83 , and the “carrying” element of CCW has been equated to possessi | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Peals
green
2 sentences2018And the officer’s observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer, 248 Mich App at 562 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain view doctrine, Champion, 452 Mich at 101 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 4 “Possession” is an element of felon-in-possession, MCL 750.224f; People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 640 ; 720 NW2d 196 (2006); Johnson, 293 Mich App at 82-83 , and the “carrying” element of CCW has been equated to possessi 2018And the officer’s observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer, 248 Mich App at 562 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain view doctrine, Champion, 452 Mich at 101 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 4 “Possession” is an element of felon-in-possession, MCL 750.224f; People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 640 ; 720 NW2d 196 (2006); Johnson, 293 Mich App at 82-83 , and the “carrying” element of CCW has been equated to possessi | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Bass
green
2 sentences2018And the officer’s observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer, 248 Mich App at 562 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain view doctrine, Champion, 452 Mich at 101 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 4 “Possession” is an element of felon-in-possession, MCL 750.224f; People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 640 ; 720 NW2d 196 (2006); Johnson, 293 Mich App at 82-83 , and the “carrying” element of CCW has been equated to possessi 2018And the officer’s observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer, 248 Mich App at 562 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain view doctrine, Champion, 452 Mich at 101 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 4 “Possession” is an element of felon-in-possession, MCL 750.224f; People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 640 ; 720 NW2d 196 (2006); Johnson, 293 Mich App at 82-83 , and the “carrying” element of CCW has been equated to possessi | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Butler
green
2 sentences2018And the officer’s observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer, 248 Mich App at 562 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain view doctrine, Champion, 452 Mich at 101 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 4 “Possession” is an element of felon-in-possession, MCL 750.224f; People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 640 ; 720 NW2d 196 (2006); Johnson, 293 Mich App at 82-83 , and the “carrying” element of CCW has been equated to possessi 2018And the officer’s observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer, 248 Mich App at 562 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain view doctrine, Champion, 452 Mich at 101 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 4 “Possession” is an element of felon-in-possession, MCL 750.224f; People v Bass, 317 Mich App 241, 268 ; 893 NW2d 140 (2016), and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b; People v Peals, 476 Mich 636, 640 ; 720 NW2d 196 (2006); Johnson, 293 Mich App at 82-83 , and the “carrying” element of CCW has been equated to possessi | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Custer
green
2 sentences2018And the officer's observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer , 248 Mich. App. at 562 , 640 N.W.2d 576 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain-view doctrine, Champion , 452 Mich. at 101 , 549 N.W.2d 849 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. 2018And the officer's observation of the back of the gun handle was from a lawful position regardless of the use of the flashlight, Custer , 248 Mich. App. at 562 , 640 N.W.2d 576 , thereby implicating, at this juncture, the plain-view doctrine, Champion , 452 Mich. at 101 , 549 N.W.2d 849 , allowing for the seizure of the gun. | 3 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2017No searching, no matter how minimal, may be done under the auspices of the plain view doctrine.” People v Wilson, 257 Mich App 337, 361 ; 668 NW2d 371 (2003), vacated in part on other grounds 469 Mich 1018 (2004), quoting Champion, 452 Mich at 101. 2017No searching, no matter how minimal, may be done under the auspices of the plain view doctrine.” People v Wilson, 257 Mich App 337, 361 ; 668 NW2d 371 (2003), vacated in part on other grounds 469 Mich 1018 (2004), quoting Champion, 452 Mich at 101. | 3 | 2004–2017 |
People v. Myshock
green
2 sentences1991Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 466 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971); People v Myshock, 116 Mich App 72, 75-76 ; 321 NW2d 849 (1982). 1991Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 466 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971); People v Myshock, 116 Mich App 72, 75-76 ; 321 NW2d 849 (1982). | 3 | 1985–1991 |
People v. Heard
green
2 sentences1982People v Heard, 65 Mich App 494 ; 237 NW2d 525 (1975). 1982People v Heard, 65 Mich App 494 ; 237 NW2d 525 (1975). | 3 | 1977–1982 |
United States v. Lee
green
2 sentences1977United States v Lee, 274 US 559 ; 47 S Ct 746 ; 71 L Ed 1202 (1927).” The Supreme Court had previously adopted the following rule in People v Tisi, 384 Mich 214, 218 ; 180 NW2d 801 (1970): "In the recent case of Harris v United States, 390 US 234 ; 88 S Ct 992 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067 (1968), the Court said (p 236): " 'It has long been settled that objects falling in the *552 plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.’ ” Under the plain view doctrine, by which the instant seizure is justified, the most cru 1977United States v Lee, 274 US 559 ; 47 S Ct 746 ; 71 L Ed 1202 (1927).” The Supreme Court had previously adopted the following rule in People v Tisi, 384 Mich 214, 218 ; 180 NW2d 801 (1970): "In the recent case of Harris v United States, 390 US 234 ; 88 S Ct 992 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067 (1968), the Court said (p 236): " 'It has long been settled that objects falling in the *552 plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.’ ” Under the plain view doctrine, by which the instant seizure is justified, the most cru | 3 | 1973–1977 |
People of Michigan v. Keenan Barbee
green
2 sentences2025People v Barbee, 325 Mich App 1, 5-6 ; 923 NW2d 601 (2018). 2025People v Barbee, 325 Mich App 1, 5-6 ; 923 NW2d 601 (2018). | 2 | 2023–2025 |
People v. Custer
green
2 sentences2020However, “[t]he police cannot manipulate an object in order to determine whether it is contraband; it must be immediately apparent from plain view . . . that the object is contraband.” People v Custer, 465 Mich 319, 336 ; 630 NW2d 870 (2001). 2020However, “[t]he police cannot manipulate an object in order to determine whether it is contraband; it must be immediately apparent from plain view . . . that the object is contraband.” People v Custer, 465 Mich 319, 336 ; 630 NW2d 870 (2001). | 2 | 2004–2020 |
People v. Brzezinski
green
2 sentences2017From the tree line, Henderson observed an “overwhelming” and “extensive” amount of smoke coming from the chimney that smelled like an “extremely excess amount of freshly burned marijuana,” and he could see the living room “getting brighter and brighter” “from a fire.” Based on this information, Henderson and Keller clearly had probable cause, Brzezinski, 243 Mich App at 433 -434 and the issue we are faced with is whether the requisites for application of the plain view exception existed. 2017From the tree line, Henderson observed an “overwhelming” and “extensive” amount of smoke coming from the chimney that smelled like an “extremely excess amount of freshly burned marijuana,” and he could see the living room “getting brighter and brighter” “from a fire.” Based on this information, Henderson and Keller clearly had probable cause, Brzezinski, 243 Mich App at 433 -434 and the issue we are faced with is whether the requisites for application of the plain view exception existed. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Goodman green | 2 | 1981–2002 |
| People v. Alfafara green | 2 | 1986–1991 |
| People v. Dugan green | 2 | 1982–1985 |
| People v. Murphy green | 2 | 1980–1982 |
| People v. Brown green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| United States v. Anthony Williams green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Henderson green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Edwards green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Mapp v. Ohio green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Unger green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| United States v. Knights green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Collins green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Seals green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Vaughn green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Smith v. ANONYMOUS JOINT ENTERPRISE green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Waclawski green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| United States v. Mark Edwin Sells green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Oliver green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Raybon green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Frohriep green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Michigan v. Long green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Davis neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Blackburne green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.