61 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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. Rosegreen2 sentences2024Notably, the open view doctrine provides that a detection does not constitute a search “‘when a law enforcement officer is able to detect something by utilization of one or more of his senses while lawfully present at the vantage point where those senses are used[.]’” State v. Bobic, 140 Wn.2d 250, 259 , 996 P.2d 610 (2000) (quoting State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 392 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996)). 2024In regard to Officer Pierson’s use of a flashlight to look through the window of the vehicle, our Supreme Court has upheld the use of a flashlight under the open view doctrine where the flashlight “does not transform an observation which would fall within the open view doctrine during daylight into an impermissible search simply because darkness falls.” Rose, 128 Wn.2d at 398-99 . | 5 | 22 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2020Under the open view doctrine, “‘when a law enforcement officer is able to detect something by utilization of one or more of his senses while lawfully present at the vantage point where those senses are used, that detection does not constitute a search’.” State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 392 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 182 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). 2020Under the open view doctrine, “‘when a law enforcement officer is able to detect something by utilization of one or more of his senses while lawfully present at the vantage point where those senses are used, that detection does not constitute a search’.” State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 392 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 182 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). | 5 | 11 |
State v. Seagullgreen2 sentences2020The open view doctrine and plain view doctrine are “visually similar, but legally distinct.” State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 901 , 632 P.2d 44 (1981). 2020The open view doctrine and plain view doctrine are “visually similar, but legally distinct.” State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 901 , 632 P.2d 44 (1981). | 3 | 30 |
State v. Rosegreen2 sentences2024Notably, the open view doctrine provides that a detection does not constitute a search “‘when a law enforcement officer is able to detect something by utilization of one or more of his senses while lawfully present at the vantage point where those senses are used[.]’” State v. Bobic, 140 Wn.2d 250, 259 , 996 P.2d 610 (2000) (quoting State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 392 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996)). 2020Under the open view doctrine, “‘when a law enforcement officer is able to detect something by utilization of one or more of his senses while lawfully present at the vantage point where those senses are used, that detection does not constitute a search’.” State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 392 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 182 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994)). | 3 | 16 |
State v. Gibsongreen2 sentences2011Under the open view doctrine, Smith's observation of the pills and pill bottles, from the nonconstitutionally protected area outside of Jones's vehicle, was not a search implicating article I, section 7; however, the open view doctrine did not permit his warrantless entry into Jones's vehicle to seize the items. ¶ 19 In Gibson, two officers stopped the defendant's car after he failed to signal a turn. 152 Wash.App. at 948-49 , 219 P.3d 964 . 2011Under the open view doctrine, Smith's observation of the pills and pill bottles, from the nonconstitutionally protected area outside of Jones's vehicle, was not a search implicating article I, section 7; however, the open view doctrine did not permit his warrantless entry into Jones's vehicle to seize the items. ¶ 19 In Gibson, two officers stopped the defendant's car after he failed to signal a turn. 152 Wash.App. at 948-49 , 219 P.3d 964 . | 3 | 4 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2011No Washington court has recently issued a "new controlling constitutional interpretation" of either the open view or plain view exceptions to the exclusionary rule and Jones cannot satisfy the first factor of the Robinson test. 171 Wash.2d at 305, 253 P.3d 84 ; see also, Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2434 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (courts do not apply the exclusionary rule to evidence properly seized under the law at the time the search is conducted). ¶ 63 Accordingly, because Jones failed to challenge the admissibility of the evidence resulting from Officer Kenneth Smit 2011RAP 2.5(a); Robinson, 171 Wash.2d at 305, 253 P.3d 84 ; Mierz, 127 Wash.2d at 468 , 901 P.2d 286 . ¶ 64 Alternatively, when Officer Smith approached Jones's vehicle, he saw what he immediately recognized as evidence of the crime of unlawful possession of a controlled substance then being conducted in his presence: oxycodone pills spilling out of an unlabeled *893 pill bottle in the car door. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Kaaheenagreen2 sentences2004However, the open view doctrine applies—and a Washington citizen’s privacy expectation vanishes—only when “ ‘the observation takes place from a non-intrusive vantage point.’ ” State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 632 P.2d 44 (1981) (quoting State v. Kaaheena, 59 Haw. 23 , 575 P.2d 462, 467 (1978)). 2004However, the open view doctrine applies—and a Washington citizen’s privacy expectation vanishes—only when “ ‘the observation takes place from a non-intrusive vantage point.’ ” State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 632 P.2d 44 (1981) (quoting State v. Kaaheena, 59 Haw. 23 , 575 P.2d 462, 467 (1978)). | 2 | 4 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011No Washington court has recently issued a "new controlling constitutional interpretation" of either the open view or plain view exceptions to the exclusionary rule and Jones cannot satisfy the first factor of the Robinson test. 171 Wash.2d at 305, 253 P.3d 84 ; see also, Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2434 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (courts do not apply the exclusionary rule to evidence properly seized under the law at the time the search is conducted). ¶ 63 Accordingly, because Jones failed to challenge the admissibility of the evidence resulting from Officer Kenneth Smit 2011No Washington court has recently issued a "new controlling constitutional interpretation" of either the open view or plain view exceptions to the exclusionary rule and Jones cannot satisfy the first factor of the Robinson test. 171 Wash.2d at 305, 253 P.3d 84 ; see also, Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2434 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (courts do not apply the exclusionary rule to evidence properly seized under the law at the time the search is conducted). ¶ 63 Accordingly, because Jones failed to challenge the admissibility of the evidence resulting from Officer Kenneth Smit | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gibsongreen2 sentences2011Under the open view doctrine, Smith's observation of the pills and pill bottles, from the nonconstitutionally protected area outside of Jones's vehicle, was not a search implicating article I, section 7; however, the open view doctrine did not permit his warrantless entry into Jones's vehicle to seize the items. ¶ 19 In Gibson, two officers stopped the defendant's car after he failed to signal a turn. 152 Wash.App. at 948-49 , 219 P.3d 964 . 2011Under the open view doctrine, Smith's observation of the pills and pill bottles, from the nonconstitutionally protected area outside of Jones's vehicle, was not a search implicating article I, section 7; however, the open view doctrine did not permit his warrantless entry into Jones's vehicle to seize the items. ¶ 19 In Gibson, two officers stopped the defendant's car after he failed to signal a turn. 152 Wash.App. at 948-49 , 219 P.3d 964 . | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Ferrogreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2011State v. Kennedy, 107 Wash.2d 1, 10 , 726 P.2d 445 (1986). ¶ 17 The open view doctrine "does not[, however,] provide authority to enter constitutionally-protected areas to take the items without first obtaining a warrant." State v. Posenjak, 127 Wash.App. 41, 52-53 , 111 P.3d 1206 (2005). 2011State v. Kennedy, 107 Wash.2d 1, 10 , 726 P.2d 445 (1986). ¶ 17 The open view doctrine "does not[, however,] provide authority to enter constitutionally-protected areas to take the items without first obtaining a warrant." State v. Posenjak, 127 Wash.App. 41, 52-53 , 111 P.3d 1206 (2005). | 1 | 8 |
| State v. O'Neillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arthur Earl Marshall v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. O'NEILLgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jenkins v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Myers
green
2 sentences2004The open view doctrine does not apply—and a Washington citizen’s privacy expectation remains—“[i]f the officer substantially or unreasonably departs from a nonintrusive area, or employs a particularly intrusive method of viewing.” State v. Myers, 117 Wn.2d 332, 345 , 815 P.2d 761 (1991) (emphasis added). 2004The open view doctrine does not apply—and a Washington citizen’s privacy expectation remains—“[i]f the officer substantially or unreasonably departs from a nonintrusive area, or employs a particularly intrusive method of viewing.” State v. Myers, 117 Wn.2d 332, 345 , 815 P.2d 761 (1991) (emphasis added). | 5 | 1996–2004 |
State v. Neeley
green
2 sentences2005State v. Neeley, 113 Wn. 2005State v. Neeley, 113 Wn. | 4 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Cardenas
green
2 sentences2022In order to seize an object pursuant to the open view doctrine, the object must, of course, be in “view.” In other words, an officer must be able to detect the object without “manipulat[ing]” it, solely “by using one or more of [their] senses.” Morgan, 193 Wn.2d at 372 & n.6; Cardenas, 146 Wn.2d at 408 . 2002“Under the open view doctrine, if an officer detects something by using one or more of his or her senses, while lawfully present at the vantage point where those senses are used, no search has occurred.” State v. Cardenas, 146 Wn.2d 400, 408 , 47 P.3d 127 (2002) (citing State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 393 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996); State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994); State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 901 , 632 P.2d 44 (1981)). | 3 | 2002–2022 |
State v. Young
green
2 sentences2017A flashlight is, instead, an exceedingly common device that can do no more than reveal what would be visible in natural light.• This court concluded: "[W]e hold that the fact that a flashlight is used does not transform an observation which would fall within the open view doctrine during daylight into an impermissible search simply because darkness falls." Rose, 128 Wn.2d at 398-99 , quoted in Young, 135 Wn.2d at 513 n. 8. 2003This court concluded: “[W]e hold that the fact that a flashlight is used does not transform an observation which would fall within the open view doctrine during daylight into an impermissible search simply because darkness falls.” Rose, 128 Wn.2d at 398-99 , quoted in Young, 135 Wn.2d at 513 n.8. | 3 | 2003–2017 |
State v. Posenjak
green
2 sentences2011State v. Kennedy, 107 Wash.2d 1, 10 , 726 P.2d 445 (1986). ¶ 17 The open view doctrine "does not[, however,] provide authority to enter constitutionally-protected areas to take the items without first obtaining a warrant." State v. Posenjak, 127 Wash.App. 41, 52-53 , 111 P.3d 1206 (2005). 2011State v. Kennedy, 107 Wash.2d 1, 10 , 726 P.2d 445 (1986). ¶ 17 The open view doctrine "does not[, however,] provide authority to enter constitutionally-protected areas to take the items without first obtaining a warrant." State v. Posenjak, 127 Wash.App. 41, 52-53 , 111 P.3d 1206 (2005). | 3 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Mierz
green
2 sentences2011RAP 2.5(a); Robinson, 171 Wash.2d at 305, 253 P.3d 84 ; Mierz, 127 Wash.2d at 468 , 901 P.2d 286 . ¶ 64 Alternatively, when Officer Smith approached Jones's vehicle, he saw what he immediately recognized as evidence of the crime of unlawful possession of a controlled substance then being conducted in his presence: oxycodone pills spilling out of an unlabeled *893 pill bottle in the car door. 2011RAP 2.5(a); Robinson, 171 Wash.2d at 305, 253 P.3d 84 ; Mierz, 127 Wash.2d at 468 , 901 P.2d 286 . ¶ 64 Alternatively, when Officer Smith approached Jones's vehicle, he saw what he immediately recognized as evidence of the crime of unlawful possession of a controlled substance then being conducted in his presence: oxycodone pills spilling out of an unlabeled *893 pill bottle in the car door. | 3 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Louthan
green
2 sentences2011Louthan, 158 Wash.App. at 746 , 242 P.3d 954 . 2011App. 732 , 242 P.3d 954 (2010), in its discussion of the open view doctrine. | 3 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Posenjak
green
2 sentences2011State v. Kennedy, 107 Wash.2d 1, 10 , 726 P.2d 445 (1986). ¶ 17 The open view doctrine "does not[, however,] provide authority to enter constitutionally-protected areas to take the items without first obtaining a warrant." State v. Posenjak, 127 Wash.App. 41, 52-53 , 111 P.3d 1206 (2005). 2011State v. Kennedy, 107 Wash.2d 1, 10 , 726 P.2d 445 (1986). ¶ 17 The open view doctrine "does not[, however,] provide authority to enter constitutionally-protected areas to take the items without first obtaining a warrant." State v. Posenjak, 127 Wash.App. 41, 52-53 , 111 P.3d 1206 (2005). | 3 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Louthan
green
2 sentences2011Louthan, 158 Wash.App. at 746 , 242 P.3d 954 . 2011Louthan, 158 Wn. | 3 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences2005Id. (quoting State v. Parker, 139 Wn.2d 486, 496 , 987 P.2d 73 (1999)). ¶22 The open view doctrine is an exception. 2005App. at 657 (quoting State v. Parker, 139 Wn.2d 486, 496 , 987 P.2d 73 (1999)). ¶24 One such exception is the open-view doctrine. | 3 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences2005Id. (quoting State v. Parker, 139 Wn.2d 486, 496 , 987 P.2d 73 (1999)). ¶22 The open view doctrine is an exception. 2005App. at 657 (quoting State v. Parker, 139 Wn.2d 486, 496 , 987 P.2d 73 (1999)). ¶24 One such exception is the open-view doctrine. | 3 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Turner
neutral
2 sentences2005Id. (quoting State v. Parker, 139 Wn.2d 486, 496 , 987 P.2d 73 (1999)). ¶22 The open view doctrine is an exception. 2005Id. ¶ 22 The open view doctrine is an exception. | 3 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Dunn
green
2 sentences1998Judge Baker mentioned Hodari D. in a footnote to his dissent in State v. Nettles, 70 Wash.App. 706 , 714 n. 1, 855 P.2d 699 (1993). [8] This is consistent with our holding in State v. Rose, 128 Wash.2d 388 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996), a search case, wherein we held illumination of the interior of a mobile home by a flashlight at night satisfied the open view doctrine: In accord with the reasoning in [ United States v. ] Dunn [ 480 U.S. 294 , 107 S.Ct. 1134 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326 ], [ United States v. ] Lee [ 274 U.S. 559 , 47 S.Ct. 746 , 71 L.Ed. 1202 ], and other cases cited above, we hold that the fact 1998Judge Baker mentioned Hodari D. in a footnote to his dissent in State v. Nettles, 70 Wash.App. 706 , 714 n. 1, 855 P.2d 699 (1993). [8] This is consistent with our holding in State v. Rose, 128 Wash.2d 388 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996), a search case, wherein we held illumination of the interior of a mobile home by a flashlight at night satisfied the open view doctrine: In accord with the reasoning in [ United States v. ] Dunn [ 480 U.S. 294 , 107 S.Ct. 1134 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326 ], [ United States v. ] Lee [ 274 U.S. 559 , 47 S.Ct. 746 , 71 L.Ed. 1202 ], and other cases cited above, we hold that the fact | 3 | 1996–1998 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2011No Washington court has recently issued a "new controlling constitutional interpretation" of either the open view or plain view exceptions to the exclusionary rule and Jones cannot satisfy the first factor of the Robinson test. 171 Wash.2d at 305, 253 P.3d 84 ; see also, Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2434 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (courts do not apply the exclusionary rule to evidence properly seized under the law at the time the search is conducted). ¶ 63 Accordingly, because Jones failed to challenge the admissibility of the evidence resulting from Officer Kenneth Smit 2011No Washington court has recently issued a "new controlling constitutional interpretation" of either the open view or plain view exceptions to the exclusionary rule and Jones cannot satisfy the first factor of the Robinson test. 171 Wash.2d at 305, 253 P.3d 84 ; see also, Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2434 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (courts do not apply the exclusionary rule to evidence properly seized under the law at the time the search is conducted). ¶ 63 Accordingly, because Jones failed to challenge the admissibility of the evidence resulting from Officer Kenneth Smit | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2010Nor did they argue its relationship to Arizona v. Gant, _U.S. _, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 , 173 L. 2010Nor did they argue its relationship to Arizona v. Gant, _U.S. _, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 , 173 L. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2010Each bait car contains a silent alarm that is activated when someone uses any kind of force or manipulation to gain entry. [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] The dissent emphasizes that the tools were in open view, but neither party argued that the open view doctrine applied under our state law. 2010Each bait car contains a silent alarm that is activated when someone uses any kind of force or manipulation to gain entry. [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] The dissent emphasizes that the tools were in open view, but neither party argued that the open view doctrine applied under our state law. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Mendez
red
2 sentences2005Mendez, 137 Wn.2d at 214 . ¶20 Mr. Posenjak asserts that the elk carcass is not admissible under the open view doctrine. 2005Mendez, 137 Wash.2d at 214 , 970 P.2d 722 . ¶ 20 Mr. Posenjak asserts that the elk carcass is not admissible under the open view doctrine. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Dyreson
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 711 . ¶26 Here, the open view doctrine is satisfied. 2005Id. at 711 , 17 P.3d 668 . ¶ 26 Here, the open view doctrine is satisfied. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Neeley
green
2 sentences2005State v. Neeley, 113 Wash.App. 100, 109 , 52 P.3d 539 (2002). 2005State v. Neeley, 113 Wash. App. 100, 109 , 52 P.3d 539 (2002). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Cardenas
green
2 sentences2002“Under the open view doctrine, if an officer detects something by using one or more of his or her senses, while lawfully present at the vantage point where those senses are used, no search has occurred.” State v. Cardenas, 146 Wn.2d 400, 408 , 47 P.3d 127 (2002) (citing State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388, 393 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996); State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994); State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 901 , 632 P.2d 44 (1981)). 2002"Under the open view doctrine, if an officer detects something by using one or more of his or her senses, while lawfully present at the vantage point where those senses are used, no search has occurred." State v. Cardenas, 146 Wash.2d 400, 408 , 47 P.3d 127 (2002) (citing State v. Rose, 128 Wash.2d 388, 393 , 909 P.2d 280 (1996); State v. Young, 123 Wash.2d 173 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994); State v. Seagull, 95 Wash.2d 898, 901 , 632 P.2d 44 (1981)). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Maxfield green | 2 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Bobic green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Bobic green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Morgan green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Ramirez green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Reynolds green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Parker green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Reynolds green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Byrd green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Brock green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Young green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Cagle green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Barnes green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Jesson green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Blockburger v. United States green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Terry v. Ohio green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. IBARRA-CISNEROS neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Mendez red | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Turner green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.