plain view doctrine in Connecticut

2019"The plain view doctrine is based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are ... entitled to be in a position to view the items seized." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Arokium , 143 Conn. App. 419 , 433, 71 A.3d 569 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 904 , 75 A.3d 31 (2013) ; see also Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 464-73, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) ; State v. Ruth , 181 Conn. 187 , 193, 435 A.2d 3 (1980).

2019"The plain view doctrine is based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are ... entitled to be in a position to view the items seized." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Arokium , 143 Conn. App. 419 , 433, 71 A.3d 569 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 904 , 75 A.3d 31 (2013) ; see also Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 464-73, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) ; State v. Ruth , 181 Conn. 187 , 193, 435 A.2d 3 (1980).

2018"The immediately apparent requirement of the plain view exception is satisfied if, at the time of discovery of the contraband or evidence, there is probable cause to associate the property in plain view with criminal activity without further investigation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eady , supra, 249 Conn. at 439 , 733 A.2d 112 ."[Our Connecticut courts] consistently have held that [t]he quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause exceeds mere suspicion, but is substantially less than that required for conviction....

2018"The immediately apparent requirement of the plain view exception is satisfied if, at the time of discovery of the contraband or evidence, there is probable cause to associate the property in plain view with criminal activity without further investigation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eady , supra, 249 Conn. at 439 , 733 A.2d 112 ."[Our Connecticut courts] consistently have held that [t]he quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause exceeds mere suspicion, but is substantially less than that required for conviction....

2009Telephone toll records, rent/mortgage records, bank statements, records and account passbooks, receipts showing cash purchases (such as electronic equipment including [video cassette recorders], television sets, video cameras, cameras, computers, computer peripherals and storage [devices], gold and silver jewelry which are believed to have been purchased with money derived from the sale of narcotics, financial records and ‘[d]ata’, beepers, fax machines and telephone answering machines and stored messages contained either on tape or any other electronic format, safety deposit box keys and reco

2009Telephone toll records, rent/mortgage records, bank statements, records and account passbooks, receipts showing cash purchases (such as electronic equipment including [video cassette recorders], television sets, video cameras, cameras, computers, computer peripherals and storage [devices], gold and silver jewelry which are believed to have been purchased with money derived from the sale of narcotics, financial records and ‘[d]ata’, beepers, fax machines and telephone answering machines and stored messages contained either on tape or any other electronic format, safety deposit box keys and reco

2002Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431, 436 , 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L.

2002Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431, 436 , 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L.

2025The plain view doctrine is ‘‘based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are operating within the parameters of a valid search warrant or are otherwise entitled to be in a position to view the items seized.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 347 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2000).

2006The plain view doctrine is “based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are operating within the parameters of a valid search warrant or are otherwise entitled to be in a position to view the items seized.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 347 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L.

2025The plain view doctrine is ‘‘based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are operating within the parameters of a valid search warrant or are otherwise entitled to be in a position to view the items seized.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 347 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2000).

2025The plain view doctrine is ‘‘based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are operating within the parameters of a valid search warrant or are otherwise entitled to be in a position to view the items seized.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 347 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2000).

2025The plain view doctrine is ‘‘based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are operating within the parameters of a valid search warrant or are otherwise entitled to be in a position to view the items seized.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 347 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2000).

2025The plain view doctrine is ‘‘based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are operating within the parameters of a valid search warrant or are otherwise entitled to be in a position to view the items seized.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cobb, 251 Conn. 285, 347 , 743 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841 , 121 S. Ct. 106 , 148 L. Ed. 2d 64 (2000).

2002Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the United States Supreme Court articulated what has become known as the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431, 436 , 733 A.2d 112 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L.

2000In discussing the “immediately apparent” aspect of the plain view doctrine and its implicit probable cause requirement, our Supreme Court has stated that “ [w]hether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred turns on an objective assessment of the officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time . . . and not on the officer’s actual state of mind at the time the challenged action was taken . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eady, 249 Conn. 431, 441 , 733 A.2d 112 (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1030 , 120 S. Ct. 551 , 145 L.

2001State v. Hamilton , 214 Conn. 692 , 700 .

1999The defendant cited State v. Hamilton, 214 Conn. 692 (1990) to argue that under the Connecticut constitution there is a requirement of inadvertence for the exception to apply.

1999The warrantless seizure of contraband that is in plain view is reasonable under the fourth amendment if two requirements are met: “(1) the initial intrusion that enabled the police to view the items seized must have been lawful; and (2) the police must have had probable cause to believe that these items were contraband or stolen goods.” 7 State v. Ruscoe, 212 Conn. 223 , 237-38 n.8, 563 A.2d 267 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1084 , 110 S. Ct. 1144 , 107 L.

1990In State v. Ruscoe, 212 Conn. 223 , 237 n.8, 563 A.2d 267 (1989), cert. denied, U.S. , 110 S. Ct. 1144 , 107 L. Ed. 2d 1049 (1990), we noted “the uncertain status of the ‘inadvertence’ aspect of the plain view doctrine.” In Ruscoe , we recognized that “[t]his ‘requirement’ of the plain view doctrine has never been accepted by a judgment supported by a majority of the United States Supreme Court.” Id.; see Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 330 , 107 S. Ct. 1149 , 94 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1987) (White, J., concurring) (requirement of inadvertency never accepted by a majority of the court), (O’Connor, J.,

2019"The plain view doctrine is based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are ... entitled to be in a position to view the items seized." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Arokium , 143 Conn. App. 419 , 433, 71 A.3d 569 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 904 , 75 A.3d 31 (2013) ; see also Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 464-73, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) ; State v. Ruth , 181 Conn. 187 , 193, 435 A.2d 3 (1980).

2019"The plain view doctrine is based upon the premise that the police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are ... entitled to be in a position to view the items seized." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Arokium , 143 Conn. App. 419 , 433, 71 A.3d 569 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 904 , 75 A.3d 31 (2013) ; see also Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 464-73, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) ; State v. Ruth , 181 Conn. 187 , 193, 435 A.2d 3 (1980).

2007Our Supreme Court has held that the plain view doctrine “makes permissible, with certain limitations, the seizure of items found by the police while executing a warrant naming other objects.” State v. Onofrio, 179 Conn. 23, 39 , 425 A.2d 560 (1979).

2007Our Supreme Court has held that the plain view doctrine “makes permissible, with certain limitations, the seizure of items found by the police while executing a warrant naming other objects.” State v. Onofrio, 179 Conn. 23, 39 , 425 A.2d 560 (1979).

2002The police meet the immediately apparent requirement if, [up]on discovery, they have probable cause to associate the property in plain view with criminal activity without further investigation." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Montgomery, 254 Conn. 694 , 706 , 759 A.2d 995 (2000).

2002The police meet the immediately apparent requirement if, [up]on discovery, they have probable cause to associate the property in plain view with criminal activity without further investigation." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Montgomery, 254 Conn. 694 , 706 , 759 A.2d 995 (2000).

2002Ed. 2d 334 (1993). “[T]he police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are operating within the parameters of a valid search warrant or are otherwise entitled to be in a position to view the items seized.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sailor, 33 Conn. App. 409, 414 , 635 A.2d 1237 , cert. denied, 229 Conn. 911 , 642 A.2d 1208 (1994).

2002Ed. 2d 334 (1993). “[T]he police need not ignore incriminating evidence in plain view while they are operating within the parameters of a valid search warrant or are otherwise entitled to be in a position to view the items seized.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sailor, 33 Conn. App. 409, 414 , 635 A.2d 1237 , cert. denied, 229 Conn. 911 , 642 A.2d 1208 (1994).

1999The warrantless seizure of contraband that is in plain view is reasonable under the fourth amendment if two requirements are met: “(1) the initial intrusion that enabled the police to view the items seized must have been lawful; and (2) the police must have had probable cause to believe that these items were contraband or stolen goods.” 7 State v. Ruscoe, 212 Conn. 223 , 237-38 n.8, 563 A.2d 267 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1084 , 110 S. Ct. 1144 , 107 L.

1998The warrantless seizure of contraband that is in plain view is reasonable under the fourth amendment if two requirements are met:' “(1) the initial intrusion that enabled the police to view the items seized must have been lawful; and (2) the police must have probable cause to believe that these items were contraband or stolen goods.” 3 State v. Ruscoe, 212 Conn. 223 , 237-38 n.8, 563 A.2d 267 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1084 , 110 S. Ct. 1144 , 107 L.

1995Accordingly, we hold today that the “plain feel” doctrine enunciated in Minnesota v. Dickerson, supra, 508 U.S. 375 -76, expands the permissible search beyond the bounds of the Connecticut constitution and ignores the rationale for the limited exception to the warrant requirement that was created in Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. 1 , and State v. Williams, supra, 157 Conn. 114 .

1994Further, the trial court stated that the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle “had engaged in, are engaged in, or about to engage in criminal activity . . . .” See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L.

1993“Inadvertence is not required if the items seized fall under the category of contraband, stolen property or objects dangerous in themselves.” State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530, 547 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192 , 105 S. Ct. 971 , 83 L.

1990See State v. Reddick, supra; State v. Altrui, supra; State v. Graham, supra; State v. Federici, supra; State v. Pepe, supra; State v. Watson, 165 Conn. 577, 587 , 345 A.2d 532 (1973); State v. Krause, supra. In State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530, 547 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192 , 105 S. Ct. 967 , 83 L. Ed. 2d 971 (1985), we held, however, that “inadvertence is not required if the items seized fall under the category of contraband, stolen property or objects dangerous in themselves.” See State v. Ruscoe, supra, 238 (contraband involved).

1993“Inadvertence is not required if the items seized fall under the category of contraband, stolen property or objects dangerous in themselves.” State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530, 547 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192 , 105 S. Ct. 971 , 83 L.

1993“Inadvertence is not required if the items seized fall under the category of contraband, stolen property or objects dangerous in themselves.” State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530, 547 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192 , 105 S. Ct. 971 , 83 L.