73 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Collettgreen2 sentences1979The plain view doctrine was discussed at length in State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783 (Mo. banc 1976), wherein this Court at 786 reviewing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) stated: “[Coolidge ] is authority for the proposition that plain view alone is not enough to justify a warrantless seizure. 1979The plain view doctrine was discussed at length in State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783 (Mo. banc 1976), wherein this Court at 786 reviewing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) stated: "[ Coolidge ] is authority for the proposition that plain view alone is not enough to justify a warrantless seizure. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Schneidergreen2 sentences2014State v. Schneider, 736 S.W.2d 392, 399 (Mo. banc 1987). 1996State v. Schneider, 736 S.W.2d 392, 399 (Mo. banc 1987). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Blankenshipgreen2 sentences2002State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 14 (Mo. banc 1992); 2 State v. Collins, 816 S.W.2d 257, 261 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Mitchell, 20 S.W.3d 546, 556 (Mo.App.2000). 1993Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 737 , 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1540-41 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); State v. Turner, 716 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 14 (Mo. banc 1992); see also, Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149, 1153 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987) (the plain view exception is a seizure doctrine). | 4 | 4 |
Arizona v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2015The plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows officers to seize evidence in plain view “when the evidence is in an area where the items described in the search warrant might be, and the incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent.” State v. Robinson, 379 S.W.3d 875, 881 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326-27 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987)). 2015The plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows officers to seize evidence in plain view “when the evidence is in an area where the items described in the search warrant might be, and the incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent.” State v. Robinson, 379 S.W.3d 875, 881 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326-27 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987)). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Leavittgreen2 sentences2016State v. Leavitt, 993 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Mo.App.W.D. 1999). 2003A warrant is not required for: '(1) a search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) a seizure of items falling within the plain view doctrine; (3) a search of an automobile where probable cause exists to believe that it contains a substance which offends the law; or (4) a protective search by officers for weapons upon less than probable cause to arrest.’ ” Tackett, 12 S.W.3d at 337 (quoting State v. Leavitt, 993 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Mo.App.1999)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Holtgreen2 sentences1989The plain view exception permits an officer to seize items without a warrant if: ‘(1) the evidence is observed in plain view while the officer is in a place where he has a right to be; (2) the discovery of the evidence is inadvertent; and (3) it is apparent to the officer that he has evidence before him.’ State v. Holt, 695 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Mo.App.1985). 1987The plain view exception permits an officer to seize items without a warrant if: “(1) the evidence is observed in plain view while the officer is in a place where he has a right to be; (2) the discovery of the evidence is inadvertent; and (3) it is apparent to the officer that he has evidence before him.” State v. Holt, 695 S.W.2d 474, 477 (Mo.App.1985). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences1987State v. Clark, 592 S.W.2d 709, 715 (Mo. banc 1979); State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Mo. banc 1976). 1987State v. Clark, 592 S.W.2d 709, 715 (Mo. banc 1979); State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783, 786 (Mo. banc 1976). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2017Id. 2010“The plain view doctrine provides that anything an individual knowingly exposes to public view, even in his or her own home, involves no reasonable expectation of privacy and is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” Kriley, 976 S.W.2d at 19 . “[I]t is altogether proper for police with legitimate business to enter the areas of curtilage open to the public.” State v. Edwards, 36 S.W.3d 22, 26 (Mo.App.2000). | 2 | 2 |
Clampitt v. Nixongreen2 sentences2005See State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714, 724 (Mo. banc 2002); State v. Courtney, 102 S.W.3d 81, 87 (Mo.App.2003); Gantt, 87 S.W.3d at 333 . 2003State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714, 724 (Mo. banc 2002) (citing Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 5-6 , 102 S.Ct. 812 , 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982)). [A] person’s reasonable expectation of privacy diminishes as to items that are readily visible in an otherwise private location into which police are invited or a public location to which all have access. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hallgreen2 sentences1999State v. Holman, 556 S.W.2d 499, 504-05 (Mo.App.1977) (citing, State v. Hall, 508 S.W.2d 200, 202-03 (Mo.App.1974)). 1977State v. Hall, 508 S.W.2d 200, 202-203 [1] (Mo.App.1974). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Akersgreen2 sentences1998State v. Akers, 723 S.W.2d 9, 14 (Mo.App.1986) (citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)). 1996State v. Akers, 723 S.W.2d 9, 14 (Mo.App.1986). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hollandgreen2 sentences1993See, State v. Holland, 781 S.W.2d 808, 815 [11, 12] (Mo. App.1989). 1990State v. Schneider, 736 S.W.2d 392, 399 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1047 , 108 S.Ct. 786 , 98 L.Ed.2d 871 (1988); State v. Holland, 781 S.W.2d 808, 815 (Mo.App.1989). | 2 | 2 |
Texas v. Browngreen2 sentences2000In Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), the court applied the plain view doctrine to evidence observed within automobiles at a routine checkpoint established to check for driver’s licenses. 2000In Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), the court applied the plain view doctrine to evidence observed within automobiles at a routine checkpoint established to check for driver’s licenses. | 1 | 9 |
State v. Johnstongreen2 sentences2005State v. Johnston, 957 S.W.2d 734, 742 (Mo. banc 1997). 2003Under the plain-view exception, "an officer who is lawfully located in a place from which the object can plainly be seen may seize the object so long as there is probable cause to believe that the object is connected with the crime.” Johnston, 957 S.W.2d at 742 ; see also Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149, 1153 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347, 354 (1987); Rowland, 73 S.W.3d at 824 . 9 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Rowlandgreen2 sentences2003W.D.2000); See also State v. Rowland, 73 S.W.3d 818, 824 (Mo.App. 2003Under the plain-view exception, "an officer who is lawfully located in a place from which the object can plainly be seen may seize the object so long as there is probable cause to believe that the object is connected with the crime.” Johnston, 957 S.W.2d at 742 ; see also Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149, 1153 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347, 354 (1987); Rowland, 73 S.W.3d at 824 . 9 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Franklingreen2 sentences2016“The plain view doctrine is one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement imposed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” State v. Franklin, 144 S.W.3d 355, 359 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004). 2016“This doctrine applies when: (1) the officer is lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen; (2) the officer has a lawful right of access to the object itself; and (3) the incriminating character of the object is immediately apparent to the seizing officer.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2015The plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows officers to seize evidence in plain view “when the evidence is in an area where the items described in the search warrant might be, and the incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent.” State v. Robinson, 379 S.W.3d 875, 881 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citing Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326-27 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olivergreen1 sentence2012The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” “Article I, section 15 of the Missouri Constitution provides the same guarantees against unreasonable search and seizures; thus, the same analysis applies to cases under the Missouri Constitution as under the United States Constitution.” State v. Oliver, 293 S.W.3d 437, 442 (Mo. banc 2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Courtneygreen1 sentence2005See State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714, 724 (Mo. banc 2002); State v. Courtney, 102 S.W.3d 81, 87 (Mo.App.2003); Gantt, 87 S.W.3d at 333 . | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bibbgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lingargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mitchellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Collinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hicksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Holmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. George Martin Golaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Turnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Abbottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gibbsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Stricklandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bellahgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Giffingreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Jerry Lee Wilsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Pakulagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wilsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Michael C. Jackson, United States of America v. Salvatore (Sam) Pellitierigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences1991In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), the Court explained the plain view doctrine by stating: What the “plain view” cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came *261 inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. 1991In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), the Court explained the plain view doctrine by stating: What the “plain view” cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came *261 inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. | 12 | 1976–2014 |
Horton v. California
green
2 sentences2002In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990), the United States Supreme Court has ruled that, for the state to justify its search under the plain view doctrine, it must prove that three conditions have been satisfied: (1) that police “did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed,” id. at 136 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; (2) that the searching officer had a lawful right of access to the evidence itself, id. at 137 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; and (3) that the incriminating character of the evidence seized wa 2002In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990), the United States Supreme Court has ruled that, for the state to justify its search under the plain view doctrine, it must prove that three conditions have been satisfied: (1) that police “did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed,” id. at 136 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; (2) that the searching officer had a lawful right of access to the evidence itself, id. at 137 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; and (3) that the incriminating character of the evidence seized wa | 4 | 1992–2002 |
Harris v. United States
green
2 sentences1982Yet the officer may not enter the home without a warrant unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies.” On p. 820 Mr. Justice White quoted the following language from Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 992 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968): “It has long been settled that objects falling in the 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.” Mr. Justice White said: “The broad wording [of the quotation from Harris ] has apparently created some confusion regarding the plain view doctrine. 1982Yet the officer may not enter the home without a warrant unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies.” On p. 820 Mr. Justice White quoted the following language from Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 992 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968): “It has long been settled that objects falling in the 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.” Mr. Justice White said: “The broad wording [of the quotation from Harris ] has apparently created some confusion regarding the plain view doctrine. | 4 | 1972–1983 |
Washington v. Chrisman
green
2 sentences2003State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714, 724 (Mo. banc 2002) (citing Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 5-6 , 102 S.Ct. 812 , 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982)). [A] person’s reasonable expectation of privacy diminishes as to items that are readily visible in an otherwise private location into which police are invited or a public location to which all have access. 2003State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714, 724 (Mo. banc 2002) (citing Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 5-6 , 102 S.Ct. 812 , 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982)). [A] person’s reasonable expectation of privacy diminishes as to items that are readily visible in an otherwise private location into which police are invited or a public location to which all have access. | 2 | 1994–2003 |
In re Arlt
green
2 sentences1990State v. Schneider, 736 S.W.2d 392, 399 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1047 , 108 S.Ct. 786 , 98 L.Ed.2d 871 (1988); State v. Holland, 781 S.W.2d 808, 815 (Mo.App.1989). 1989State v. Schneider, 736 S.W.2d 392, 399 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. den. 484 U.S. 1047 , 108 S.Ct. 786 , 98 L.Ed.2d 871 (1988). | 2 | 1989–1990 |
Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
green
2 sentences1990State v. Schneider, 736 S.W.2d 392, 399 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1047 , 108 S.Ct. 786 , 98 L.Ed.2d 871 (1988); State v. Holland, 781 S.W.2d 808, 815 (Mo.App.1989). 1989State v. Schneider, 736 S.W.2d 392, 399 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. den. 484 U.S. 1047 , 108 S.Ct. 786 , 98 L.Ed.2d 871 (1988). | 2 | 1989–1990 |
State v. Kruse
green
1 sentence2017The doctrine “provides that anything an individual knowingly exposes to public view.. .involves no reasonable expectation of privacy and is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” Kruse, 306 S.W.3d at 609 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2017“The plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant require ment permits a law enforcement officer to seize what clearly is incriminating evidence or contraband when it is discovered in a place where the officer has a right to be.” Kelly, 119 S.W.3d at 592 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence2014If, on the other hand, the trial court determines that the search and seizure was justified by the plain view doctrine, then it “shall certify the transcript of the hearing and its determination and findings to this court to be made a part of the transcript in the cause for determination and disposition of the appeal upon the record as supplemented.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Kriley
green
1 sentence2010“The plain view doctrine provides that anything an individual knowingly exposes to public view, even in his or her own home, involves no reasonable expectation of privacy and is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” Kriley, 976 S.W.2d at 19 . “[I]t is altogether proper for police with legitimate business to enter the areas of curtilage open to the public.” State v. Edwards, 36 S.W.3d 22, 26 (Mo.App.2000). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Gantt
green
1 sentence2005See State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714, 724 (Mo. banc 2002); State v. Courtney, 102 S.W.3d 81, 87 (Mo.App.2003); Gantt, 87 S.W.3d at 333 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. David green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Tackett green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Neely green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Minnesota v. Dickerson green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Hutchinson green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Hargrove v. Tansy, Warden neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Hodgson v. Ylst, Warden green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Katz v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Payano green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Griffin green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| State v. Burkhardt green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Mansfield green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Chimel v. California red | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| New York v. Belton red | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Quinn green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Qualls v. United States green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Hernandez-Rodriguez v. United States green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| United States v. Tranquillo green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| People v. Harris green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| People v. Hamilton green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Johnson v. Royal Garden Estates, Inc. green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Michigan v. Tyler green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Carroll v. United States green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Haefeli v. Chernoff green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Baines green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.