plain view doctrine in Indiana

2019“To justify a warrantless seizure under the plain view doctrine, a law enforcement officer must not have violated the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place where items are in plain view, the ‘incriminating character’ of the items must be ‘immediately apparent,’ and the officer must have ‘a lawful right of access’ to the items in plain view.” Id. (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990)).

2016Rather, where items are in plain view from a lawful vantage point and their incriminating character is immediately apparent, no Fourth Amendment interest is served by application of the warrant requirement. “[B]y hypothesis, the seizure of an object in plain view does not involve an intrusion on privacy.” Horton, 496 U.S. at 141 . [43] We therefore conclude that all the challenged items were seized within the plain view exception to the warrant requirement and properly admitted at trial.

2020Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur. 5 See Granger v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1209, 1214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (“The ‘immediately apparent’ prong of the plain view doctrine requires that law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe the evidence will prove useful in solving a crime.”) 6 See Middleton v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1099, 1101 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S. Ct. 1535 (1983) (“if, while lawfully engaged in an activity in a particular place, police officers perceive a suspicious object, they may seize it immediately”)).

2002Under the plain view doctrine, the warrantless seizure of evidence is not unreasonable if the following conditions exist: (1) 'the officer [must] not have violate[d] the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed'; (2) the "incriminating character' of the evidence must be "immediately apparent'; and (8) the officer must 'have a lawful right of access to the object itself," Middleton, 714 N.E.2d at 1101 (citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990)).

2014Under 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 U.S. 366, 375 (1993) (emphasis added) (citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 136-37 6 Pugsley made no claim at his suppression hearing or during trial that Officer Kilgore had violated this statute by entering the private property.

2012See Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 379 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 (analogizing the plain-feel doctrine to the plain-view doctrine as limited by Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), which held that the moving of stereo equipment to check serial numbers was an impermissible search under the Fourth Amendment absent probable cause to suspect the equipment was stolen when “the incriminating character of the stereo equipment was not immediately apparent”).

2020McAnalley v. State, 134 N.E.3d 488 , 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. [23] In Houser v. State, 678 N.E.2d 95, 101 (Ind. 1997), our Supreme Court held that a warrant is not required to seize incriminating evidence under the plain view doctrine if the following conditions are met: (1) police have a legal right to be at the place from which the evidence can be plainly viewed; (2) the incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent; and (3) police have a lawful right of access to the object itself.

2008Indiana law enforcement officials “do not need a warrant to seize incriminating evidence under the plain view doctrine if the following conditions are met: (1) police have a legal right to be at the place from which the evidence can be plainly viewed; (2) the incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent; and (3) police have a lawful right of access to the object itself.” Houser, 678 N.E.2d at 101 .

2016Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133 (1990); Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132, 1137 (Ind. 2003).

2011The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable *1214 searches and seizures. [5] Where a warrant has been legally obtained and evidence not identified in the warrant is seized while police are executing the warrant, the plain view doctrine may nevertheless render the seizure constitutional where "a police officer seize[s] items when he inadvertently discovers items of readily apparent criminality while rightfully occupying a particular location." Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132, 1137 (Ind.2003) (citing, inter alia, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 ,

2014The plurality opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465-70 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), set forth three requirements for a warrantless seizure pursuant to the plain view doctrine, including that it be "immediately apparent" that the item be evidence of a crime.

2014The plurality opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465-70 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), set forth three requirements for a warrantless seizure pursuant to the plain view doctrine, including that it be "immediately apparent" that the item be evidence of a crime.

2014Because the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the methamphetamine found in Cox’s purse satisfied the requirements of the plain-view doctrine, we conclude that the 3 Cox cites Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324 (1987), for the proposition that the plain-view doctrine cannot be invoked if an officer has to move or manipulate an object.

2012See Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 379 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 (analogizing the plain-feel doctrine to the plain-view doctrine as limited by Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), which held that the moving of stereo equipment to check serial numbers was an impermissible search under the Fourth Amendment absent probable cause to suspect the equipment was stolen when “the incriminating character of the stereo equipment was not immediately apparent”).

1997However, under the plain view doctrine the police “may seize incriminating evidence without a warrant when two conditions are met.” Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 535, 538 (Ind.1995).

1997However, under the plain view doctrine, the police may seize evidence not identified in a warrant when two conditions are met: (1) the police must have been “lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen” and (2) the police “must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself.” Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 137 , 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2308 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112, 123 (1990); Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 535, 538 (Ind.1995).

2020Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur. 5 See Granger v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1209, 1214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (“The ‘immediately apparent’ prong of the plain view doctrine requires that law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe the evidence will prove useful in solving a crime.”) 6 See Middleton v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1099, 1101 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S. Ct. 1535 (1983) (“if, while lawfully engaged in an activity in a particular place, police officers perceive a suspicious object, they may seize it immediately”)).

2020Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur. 5 See Granger v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1209, 1214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (“The ‘immediately apparent’ prong of the plain view doctrine requires that law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe the evidence will prove useful in solving a crime.”) 6 See Middleton v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1099, 1101 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S. Ct. 1535 (1983) (“if, while lawfully engaged in an activity in a particular place, police officers perceive a suspicious object, they may seize it immediately”)).

2020“To justify a warrantless seizure under the plain view doctrine, a law enforcement officer (1) must not have violated the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place where the items are in plain view, (2) the incriminating nature of the objects in plain view must be immediately apparent, and (3) the officer must have a lawful right to access the items in plain view.” Hannibal, 804 N.E.2d at 210 . [22] The record reveals that, at the suppression hearing, Trooper Walters testified he observed a glass smoking pipe and two digital scales in plain view during the protective sweep of Saylor’s residenc

2018See also Hannibal v. State , 804 N.E.2d 206 , 210-11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (concluding that the seizure of marijuana was proper under the plain view doctrine).

2023Combs, 168 N.E.3d at 991 (quoting Warner v. State, 773 N.E.2d 239, 245 (Ind. 2002)).

2004Warner v. State, 773 N.E.2d 239, 245 (Ind.2002); see also Sloane v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1287, 1291 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (noting that the plain view doctrine "stands for the premise that objects which are in plain view of an officer who rightfully occupies a particular location can be seized without a warrant and are admissible as evidence"), trans. demied.

1998The plain view doctrine applies when an officer, after lawfully intruding into a constitutionally protected area, inadvertently sees contraband in plain view and seizes it without a warrant. [2] Wood v. State, 592 N.E.2d 740, 742 (Ind.Ct.App.1992).

1998The plain view doctrine applies when an officer, after lawfully intruding into a constitutionally protected area, inadvertently sees contraband in plain view and seizes it without a warrant. 2 Wood v. State, 592 N.E.2d 740, 742 (Ind.Ct.App.1992).

2010In Sayre v. State, 471 N.E.2d 708, 712 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), we explained the difference between the plain view doctrine and an open view.

2002Id.; *165 see also Sayre v. State, 471 N.E.2d 708, 712 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), cert. denied 475 U.S. 1027 , 106 S.Ct. 1226 , 89 L.Ed.2d 336 (1986) (emphasizing that the plain view doctrine is not implicated unless a search actually occurs).

2019See Powell, 912 N.E.2d at 863 (“When the small baggies containing marijuana in the vehicle became visible to the officers, seizure of the marijuana was proper pursuant to the ‘plain view doctrine.’”); Crabtree v. State, 762 N.E.2d 217, 218-221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding a baggie containing Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2024 | March 27, 2019 Page 9 of 11 green leafy vegetation hanging from the front pouch of the defendant’s sweatshirt was immediately apparent to an officer and the plain view doctrine supported the seizure of the marijuana from the defendant). [13]

2003Pursuant to the plain view doctrine, the following three conditions must exist to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence: (1) the officer must not have violated the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed; (2) the "incriminating character" of the evidence must be "immediately apparent;" and (8) the officer must "have a lawful right of access to the object itself." Crabtree v. State, 762 N.E.2d 217, 220 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002).

2019The open view doctrine, not to be confused with the plain view doctrine, “is used in situations in which a law enforcement officer sees contraband from an area that is not constitutionally protected, but rather is in a place where the officer is lawfully entitled to be.” Justice v. State, 765 N.E.2d 161, 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), clarified on reh’g, 767 N.E.2d 995 . 10 “In such situations, anything that is within ‘open view’ may be observed without having to obtain a search warrant because making such ‘open view’ 10 “The plain view doctrine is recognized as an exception to the search warrant r

2019The open view doctrine, not to be confused with the plain view doctrine, “is used in situations in which a law enforcement officer sees contraband from an area that is not constitutionally protected, but rather is in a place where the officer is lawfully entitled to be.” Justice v. State, 765 N.E.2d 161, 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), clarified on reh’g, 767 N.E.2d 995 . 10 “In such situations, anything that is within ‘open view’ may be observed without having to obtain a search warrant because making such ‘open view’ 10 “The plain view doctrine is recognized as an exception to the search warrant r

2004Warner v. State, 773 N.E.2d 239, 245 (Ind.2002); see also Sloane v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1287, 1291 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (noting that the plain view doctrine "stands for the premise that objects which are in plain view of an officer who rightfully occupies a particular location can be seized without a warrant and are admissible as evidence"), trans. demied.

2004Warner v. State, 773 N.E.2d 239, 245 (Ind.2002); see also Sloane v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1287, 1291 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (noting that the plain view doctrine "stands for the premise that objects which are in plain view of an officer who rightfully occupies a particular location can be seized without a warrant and are admissible as evidence"), trans. demied.

1992In White v. State (1987), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 83 , another case involving the seizure of tennis shoes, our supreme court reiterated the requirements of admissibility under the plain view doctrine. "[The initial intrusion [must be} lawful, the incriminating evidence [must be} discovered inadvertently, and it [must be} immediately apparent that the items seized may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure." Id. at 85 .

1992In White v. State (1987), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 83 , another case involving the seizure of tennis shoes, our supreme court reiterated the requirements of admissibility under the plain view doctrine. "[The initial intrusion [must be} lawful, the incriminating evidence [must be} discovered inadvertently, and it [must be} immediately apparent that the items seized may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure." Id. at 85 .

2014Under the plain view doctrine, a police officer who is lawfully in a particular place may seize an item inadvertently discovered, so long as its incriminating nature is “readily apparent.” Lance v. State, 425 N.E.2d 77, 78 (Ind. 1981).

2014Under the plain view doctrine, a police officer who is lawfully in a particular place may seize an item inadvertently discovered, so long as its incriminating nature is "readily apparent." Lance v. State, 425 N.E.2d 77, 78 (Ind.1981).

2002But cf. State v. Hollins, 672 N.E.2d 427 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (applying the plain view doctrine to factual situation which indicated that the evidence seized was in open view), trans. denied.

2000See State v. Hollins, 672 N.E.2d 427, 431-32 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) trans. denied.