plain view doctrine in North Carolina

2025“The term ‘immediately apparent’ in a plain view analysis is satisfied only if the police have probable cause to believe that what they have come upon is evidence of criminal conduct.” State v. Graves, 135 N.C.

2017The burden rests with "the State to establish all three prongs of the plain view doctrine." State v. Graves , 135 N.C.App. 216 , 219, 519 S.E.2d 770 , 772 (1999).

2017Upon review, we hold that (1) the officer was authorized to conduct the protective sweep, without reasonable suspicion, because the rooms in the apartment-including the bedroom where the shotgun was found-were areas "immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched," Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325 , 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093 , 1098, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 , 286 (1990) ; and (2) because the officer lacked probable cause to believe that the shotgun was contraband "without conducting some further search of the object," " 'its incriminating nature [was not] immediat

2017Upon review, we hold that (1) the officer was authorized to conduct the protective sweep, without reasonable suspicion, because the rooms in the apartment-including the bedroom where the shotgun was found-were areas "immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched," Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325 , 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093 , 1098, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 , 286 (1990) ; and (2) because the officer lacked probable cause to believe that the shotgun was contraband "without conducting some further search of the object," " 'its incriminating nature [was not] immediat

2017Upon review, we hold that (1) the officer was authorized to conduct the protective sweep, without reasonable suspicion, because the rooms in the apartment-including the bedroom where the shotgun was found-were areas "immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched," Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325 , 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093 , 1098, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 , 286 (1990) ; and (2) because the officer lacked probable cause to believe that the shotgun was contraband "without conducting some further search of the object," " 'its incriminating nature [was not] immediat

2017Upon review, we hold that (1) the officer was authorized to conduct the protective sweep, without reasonable suspicion, because the rooms in the apartment-including the bedroom where the shotgun was found-were areas "immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched," Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325 , 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093 , 1098, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 , 286 (1990) ; and (2) because the officer lacked probable cause to believe that the shotgun was contraband "without conducting some further search of the object," " 'its incriminating nature [was not] immediat

2024See State v. Grice, 367 N.C. 753, 756-57 , 767 S.E.2d 312, 316 (2015) (“While the general rule is that warrantless seizures are unconstitutional, a warrantless seizure of an item may be justified as reasonable under the plain view doctrine, so long as three elements are met: First, ‘that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed’; second, that the evidence’s ‘incriminating character was “immediately apparent”’; and third, that the officer had ‘a lawful right of access to the object itself.’” (citations, quotation m

2024See State v. Grice, 367 N.C. 753, 756-57 , 767 S.E.2d 312, 316 (2015) (“While the general rule is that warrantless seizures are unconstitutional, a warrantless seizure of an item may be justified as reasonable under the plain view doctrine, so long as three elements are met: First, ‘that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed’; second, that the evidence’s ‘incriminating character was “immediately apparent”’; and third, that the officer had ‘a lawful right of access to the object itself.’” (citations, quotation m

2022State v. Peck, 305 N.C. 734, 743 , 291 S.E. 2d 637, 642 (1982). 7.

2022State v. Peck, 305 N.C. 734, 743 , 291 S.E. 2d 637, 642 (1982). 7.

2025“Under the plain view doctrine, a warrantless seizure is lawful if (1) the officer views the evidence from a place where he has a legal right to be, (2) it is immediately apparent that the items observed constitute evidence of a crime, are contraband, or are subject to seizure based upon probable cause, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the evidence itself.” State v. Alexander, 233 N.C.

2020TRIPP STROUD, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part saw the bag, and that while patting [Defendant] down, he felt an associated lump that made him believe the bag contained narcotics.” “Under the plain view doctrine, a warrantless seizure is lawful if (1) the officer views the evidence from a place where he has legal right to be, (2) it is immediately apparent that the items observed constitute evidence of a crime, are contraband, or are subject to seizure based upon probable cause, and (3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the evidence itself.” State v. Alexander, 233 N.C.

2025The plain view doctrine applied only to the question whether [the officer’s] warrantless seizure of the copper coils was permissible under the plain view doctrine.”); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 738 (1983) (“‘[P]lain view’ provides grounds for seizure of an 1 The North Carolina Supreme Court recently held and clarified in State v. Rogers, No. 377PA22, 2025 WL 2942785 (N.C.

2015The plain view doctrine represents the principle that “[t]he warrantless seizure of contraband that presents itself in this manner is deemed justified by the realization that resort to a neutral magistrate under such circumstances would often be impracticable and would do little to promote the objectives of the Fourth Amendment.” Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 375 , 113 S. Ct. at 2137 (citations omitted); see also Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 739 , 103 S. Ct. 1535, 1541 (1983) (plurality) (“[Requiring police to obtain a warrant once they have obtained a first-hand perception of contraband, stolen pro

2022State v. Crews, 286 N.C. 41, 45 , 209 S.E.2d 462, 465 (1974).

2022State v. Crews, 286 N.C. 41, 45 , 209 S.E.2d 462, 465 (1974).

1983The United States Supreme Court, in discussing the rationale behind the plain view doctrine stated: “Where, once an otherwise lawful search is in progress, the police inadvertently came upon a piece of evidence, it would *409 often be a needless inconvenience, and sometimes dangerous — to the evidence or to the police themselves — to require them to ignore it until they have obtained a warrant particularly describing it.” 403 U.S. at 467-68 , 29 L.Ed. 2d at 584 , 91 S.Ct. at 2039 .

1983The United States Supreme Court, in discussing the rationale behind the plain view doctrine stated: “Where, once an otherwise lawful search is in progress, the police inadvertently came upon a piece of evidence, it would *409 often be a needless inconvenience, and sometimes dangerous — to the evidence or to the police themselves — to require them to ignore it until they have obtained a warrant particularly describing it.” 403 U.S. at 467-68 , 29 L.Ed. 2d at 584 , 91 S.Ct. at 2039 .

2015The plain view doctrine allows for the seizure of an item "when the officer was in a place where he had a right to be when the evidence was discovered and when it is immediately apparent to the police that the items observed constitute evidence of a crime, [or] are contraband[.]" State v. Mickey, 347 N.C. 508 , 516, 495 S.E .2d 669 , 674 (1998).

2012One such exception is the plain view doctrine, under which a seizure is lawful “when the officer was in a place where he had a right to be when the evidence was discovered and when it is immediately apparent to the police that the items observed constitute evi-' dence of a crime, are contraband, or are subject to seizure based upon probable cause.” State v. Mickey, 347 N.C. 508, 516 , 495 S.E.2d 669, 674 (1998) (citations omitted).

2010An item is “immediately apparent” under the plain view doctrine “if the police have probable cause to believe that what they have come upon is evidence of criminal conduct.” State v. Wilson, 112 N.C.

1999The term “immediately apparent” in a plain view analysis is satisfied only “ ‘if the police have probable cause to believe that what they have come upon is evidence of criminal conduct.’ ” State v. Wilson, 112 N.C.

2017Upon review, we hold that (1) the officer was authorized to conduct the protective sweep, without reasonable suspicion, because the rooms in the apartment-including the bedroom where the shotgun was found-were areas "immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched," Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325 , 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093 , 1098, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 , 286 (1990) ; and (2) because the officer lacked probable cause to believe that the shotgun was contraband "without conducting some further search of the object," " 'its incriminating nature [was not] immediat

2017Upon review, we hold that (1) the officer was authorized to conduct the protective sweep, without reasonable suspicion, because the rooms in the apartment-including the bedroom where the shotgun was found-were areas "immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched," Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325 , 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093 , 1098, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 , 286 (1990) ; and (2) because the officer lacked probable cause to believe that the shotgun was contraband "without conducting some further search of the object," " 'its incriminating nature [was not] immediat

1981We agree with the trial judge that if the officer had a right to search the vehicle incident to the arrest for driving under the influence, he had the right to seize and search the paper bag con taining marijuana which was in plain view or “plain odor.” An officer may make a warrantless search of a motor vehicle when he has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, State v. Greenwood, --- N.C. ---, 273 S.E. 2d 438 (1981), or an officer may seize contraband falling in the plain view of the officer when the officer has the right to be in a position to have that view, State

1981We agree with the trial judge that if the officer had a right to search the vehicle incident to the arrest for driving under the influence, he had the right to seize and search the paper bag con taining marijuana which was in plain view or “plain odor.” An officer may make a warrantless search of a motor vehicle when he has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, State v. Greenwood, --- N.C. ---, 273 S.E. 2d 438 (1981), or an officer may seize contraband falling in the plain view of the officer when the officer has the right to be in a position to have that view, State

2021NEWBORN 2021-NCCOA-426 Opinion of the Court accessible to Defendant. ¶ 40 “An item is immediately apparent under the plain view doctrine if the police have probable cause to believe that what they have come upon is evidence of criminal conduct.” State v. Haymond, 203 N.C.

2021NEWBORN 2021-NCCOA-426 Opinion of the Court accessible to Defendant. ¶ 40 “An item is immediately apparent under the plain view doctrine if the police have probable cause to believe that what they have come upon is evidence of criminal conduct.” State v. Haymond, 203 N.C.

2015While the general rule is that warrantless seizures are unconstitutional, a warrantless seizure of an item may be justified as reasonable under the plain view doctrine, so long as three elements are met: First, “that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed”; second, that the evidence’s “incriminating character . . . [was] ‘immediately apparent’ ”; and third, that the officer had “a lawful right of access to the object itself.” Horton, 496 U.S. at 136-37 , 110 S. Ct. at 2308 (internal citations omitted); accord St

2015While the general rule is that warrantless seizures are unconstitutional, a warrantless seizure of an item may be justified as reasonable under the plain view doctrine, so long as three elements are met: First, “that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed”; second, that the evidence’s “incriminating character . . . [was] ‘immediately apparent’ ”; and third, that the officer had “a lawful right of access to the object itself.” Horton, 496 U.S. at 136-37 , 110 S. Ct. at 2308 (internal citations omitted); accord St

2015When describing this element, the United States Supreme Court says that the plain view doctrine “ ‘serves to supplement the prior justification — whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused — and permits the warrantless seizure.’ ” Horton, 496 U.S. at 135-36 , 110 S. Ct. at 2307 (citation omitted); see Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 , 103 S. Ct. 3319, 3324 (1983) (“The plain-view doctrine authorizes seizure of illegal or evidentiary ite

2015When describing this element, the United States Supreme Court says that the plain view doctrine “ ‘serves to supplement the prior justification — whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused — and permits the warrantless seizure.’ ” Horton, 496 U.S. at 135-36 , 110 S. Ct. at 2307 (citation omitted); see Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 , 103 S. Ct. 3319, 3324 (1983) (“The plain-view doctrine authorizes seizure of illegal or evidentiary ite

2003In North Carolina, the plain view doctrine authorizes the lawful seizure of evidence without a warrant “when the officer was in a place he or she had a right to be at the time the evidence was discovered, it is immediately obvious that the items observed are evidence of a crime, and the discovery is inadvertent.” State v. Bone, 354 N.C. 1, 8 , 550 S.E.2d 482, 487 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 940 , 152 L.

2003In North Carolina, the plain view doctrine authorizes the lawful seizure of evidence without a warrant “when the officer was in a place he or she had a right to be at the time the evidence was discovered, it is immediately obvious that the items observed are evidence of a crime, and the discovery is inadvertent.” State v. Bone, 354 N.C. 1, 8 , 550 S.E.2d 482, 487 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 940 , 152 L.

2020App. 50, 55 , 755 S.E.2d 82, 87 (2014) (citing State v. Nance, 149 N.C.

2014App. 734, 740 , 562 S.E.2d 557, 561-62 (2002). *56 With respect to the first element of the plain view doctrine, defendant challenges the trial court’s finding that Officer Roberts could see the coils from the porch - a location where, defendant concedes, Officer Roberts had a legal right to be.

2017The "immediately apparent" requirement is " 'satisfied if the police have probable cause to believe that what they have come upon is evidence of criminal conduct.' " State v. Wilson , 112 N.C.App. 777 , 782, 437 S.E.2d 387 , 389-90 (1993) (quoting State v. White , 322 N.C. 770 , 777, 370 S.E.2d 390 , 395, cert. denied , 488 U.S. 958 , 109 S.Ct. 399 , 102 L.Ed.2d 387 (1988) ); see also State v. Carter , 200 N.C.App. 47 , 54, 682 S.E.2d 416 , 421 (2009).

2017The "immediately apparent" requirement is " 'satisfied if the police have probable cause to believe that what they have come upon is evidence of criminal conduct.' " State v. Wilson , 112 N.C.App. 777 , 782, 437 S.E.2d 387 , 389-90 (1993) (quoting State v. White , 322 N.C. 770 , 777, 370 S.E.2d 390 , 395, cert. denied , 488 U.S. 958 , 109 S.Ct. 399 , 102 L.Ed.2d 387 (1988) ); see also State v. Carter , 200 N.C.App. 47 , 54, 682 S.E.2d 416 , 421 (2009).

2020Collins, ___ U.S. at ___, 138 S. Ct. at 1672 (“[A]n officer must have a lawful right of access to any contraband he discovers in plain view in order to seize it without a warrant[.]”).