plain view doctrine in Alabama

2013“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine, which are 1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed, 2) that the incriminating character of the evidence mu

2013“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine, which are 1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed, 2) that the incriminating character of the evidence mu

2018LaFave, Search and Seizure § 6.7(a) (2d ed. 1987) (" 'The plain view exception would be worthless if officers had to be "absolutely certain" that what they saw was seizable.' ") ); Allen v. State , 689 So.2d 212 , 216 (Ala. Crim.

2018LaFave, Search and Seizure § 6.7(a) (2d ed. 1987) (" 'The plain view exception would be worthless if officers had to be "absolutely certain" that what they saw was seizable.' ") ); Allen v. State , 689 So.2d 212 , 216 (Ala. Crim.

2018See Cowart v. State , 579 So.2d 1 , 4 (Ala. Crim.

2018See Cowart v. State , 579 So.2d 1 , 4 (Ala. Crim.

2013See Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 , 103 S.Ct. 3319, 3324 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, at 740 , 103 S.Ct. [1535] at 1542 [(1983) ].

2013See Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 , 103 S.Ct. 3319, 3324 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, at 740 , 103 S.Ct. [1535] at 1542 [(1983) ].

1999The plain view exception to the search warrant requirement "`permits a warrantless seizure of evidence if the seizing officer (1) has prior justification for the intrusion, (2) comes upon the evidence inadvertently, and (3) immediately recognizes the objects discovered as evidence of wrongdoing.'" Smith v. State, 472 So.2d 677 , 682-83 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), quoting Herrin v. State, 349 So.2d 103 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977).

1984The plain view exception *Page 683 to this rule "permits a warrantless seizure of evidence if the seizing officer (1) has prior justification for the intrusion, (2) comes upon the evidence inadvertently, and (3) immediately recognizes the objects discovered as evidence of wrongdoing." Herrin v. State , 349 So.2d 103 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 349 So.2d 110 (Ala. 1977); Myers v. State , 431 So.2d 1342 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982), cert. denied, 431 So.2d 1346 (Ala. 1983); Kitchens v. State , supra. See also Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).

1996"The plain view doctrine authorizes the warrantless seizure of personal property where the initial intrusion which affords the officers a plain view is lawful, the discovery of the property is inadvertent, and the incriminating nature of the property is 'immediately apparent.' " Williams v. State , 527 So.2d 764 , 770 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987) (citations omitted).

1992Under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, an officer may seize evidence of a crime if he is legitimately on the premises where he views the evidence and if the incriminating nature of the evidence is "immediately apparent." Williams v. State , 527 So.2d 764 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987). 1 Where officers are lawfully on the scene investigating a crime and evidence is observed in plain view, that evidence may be lawfully seized, despite the absence of a search warrant.

1985See Herrin v. State , 349 So.2d 103 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 349 So.2d 110 (Ala. 1977).

1984The plain view exception *Page 683 to this rule "permits a warrantless seizure of evidence if the seizing officer (1) has prior justification for the intrusion, (2) comes upon the evidence inadvertently, and (3) immediately recognizes the objects discovered as evidence of wrongdoing." Herrin v. State , 349 So.2d 103 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 349 So.2d 110 (Ala. 1977); Myers v. State , 431 So.2d 1342 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982), cert. denied, 431 So.2d 1346 (Ala. 1983); Kitchens v. State , supra. See also Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).

2013“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine, which are 1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed, 2) that the incriminating character of the evidence mu

2013“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine, which are 1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed, 2) that the incriminating character of the evidence mu

2004Therefore, the seizure of the cocaine and marijuana without a warrant was lawful under the plain-view doctrine. *Page 55 See Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 467-68 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Christmas v. State , 624 So.2d 684 , 686 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993).

2000Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)." 624 So.2d at 686 .

1990See e.g., Spann v. State, 494 So.2d 716, 718 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), affirmed, 494 So.2d 719 (Ala.1986). “[T]he Fourth Amendment does not require that every search be made pursuant to a warrant.

1987These prerequisites exist if "the seizing officer (1) has prior justification for the intrusion; (2) comes upon the evidence inadvertently; and (3) immediately recognizes the object discovered as evidence of wrongdoing." Spann, supra , citing Myers v. State , 431 So.2d 1342 , 1344 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).

2015Therefore, under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement, officers properly seized the shotgun and had probable cause to arrest Smoak for possession of a deadly weapon with intent to do bodily harm on the premises of a school. 'IV. 10 Smoak- contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for á mistrial based on the State’s creating an inference that Smoak’s post-arrest silence was evidence of his guilt. “ ‘A mistrial is a drastic remedy that should be used sparingly ’and only to prevent manifest injustice.’ Hammonds v. State, 777 So.2d 750, 767 (Ala.Crim.

2013“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine, which are 1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed, 2) that the incriminating character of the evidence mu

2013“It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “[T]he United States Supreme Court has identified three requirements for application of the plain view doctrine, which are 1) that the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed, 2) that the incriminating character of the evidence mu

2012See also Otwell, 733 So.2d at 953 (recognizing that there is no requirement under the plain-view doctrine that the officer come upon the evidence inadvertently).

2011See, e.g., Chevere v. State, 607 So.2d 361, 368 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).

2010Zumbado v. State, 615 So.2d 1223, 1239 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Baty v. State, 401 So.2d 308, 310 (Ala.Crim.App.1981).

2010“The plain-view seizure of the items not listed in a search warrant is justified where the officer’s intrusion into the residence is pursuant to a valid search warrant and the item seized is of an incriminating nature.” Rowe v. State, 662 So.2d 1227, 1229 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

2010Zumbado v. State, 615 So.2d 1223, 1239 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Baty v. State, 401 So.2d 308, 310 (Ala.Crim.App.1981).