plain view doctrine in Virgin Islands

2026United States v. Bishop, 338 F.3d 623, 626 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The Supreme Court also has indicated that the plain view exception permits the warrantless seizure of ‘objects dangerous in themselves.’”); see United States v. Babilonia, 854 F.3d 163, 180 (2d Cir. 2017) (holding that officers were justified in seizing cell phones pursuant to plain view as the result of the culmination of a months-long police investigation yielding evidence of cell phone use in murder-for-hire conspiracies).

2016Ed. 2d 564 (1971) (plurality))); United States v. Bishop, 338 F.3d 623, 626 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The Supreme Court also has indicated that the plain view exception permits the warrantless seizure of ‘objects dangerous in themselves.’ ”).

2016Appx. 470, 472 (6th Cir. 2005) (“At the same time that the Court has permitted officers to seize items whose ‘incriminating character’ is ‘immediately apparent’ under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement, it has permitted officers to seize ‘objects dangerous in themselves.’ ” (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 472 , 91 S. Ct. 2022 , 29 L.

2016Appx. 470, 472 (6th Cir. 2005) (“At the same time that the Court has permitted officers to seize items whose ‘incriminating character’ is ‘immediately apparent’ under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement, it has permitted officers to seize ‘objects dangerous in themselves.’ ” (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 472 , 91 S. Ct. 2022 , 29 L.

2008In also affirming the appellate court’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court first discussed the limits of the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, indicating, “If... the police lack probable cause to believe that an object in plain view is contraband without conducting some further search of the object — i.e., if its incriminating character is not immediately apparent — the plain view doctrine cannot justify its seizure.” Id., at 375.

2008In also affirming the appellate court’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court first discussed the limits of the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, indicating, “If... the police lack probable cause to believe that an object in plain view is contraband without conducting some further search of the object — i.e., if its incriminating character is not immediately apparent — the plain view doctrine cannot justify its seizure.” Id., at 375.

2026Therefore, this issue is likely waived -- and even if it was not waived it is not applicable in this case.6 As we have previously held, the plain view exception allows an officer to make a “‘warrantless seizure of items that he or she viewed from a place or position in which he or she was lawfully entitled to be, provided it is immediately apparent that the item observed is evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.’” Heath v. People, 78 V.I. 990, 1008 (V.I. 2024) (quoting Gumbs v. People, 64 V.I. 491, 508-09 (V.I. 2016)).

2026Later that day at approximately 3:08 p.m., Benjamin Sr. succumbed to his injuries shortly after his arrival at Juan F. Luis Hospital. 1 People v. Cumberbatch raises the issue of standing while this case does not and this case raises the issue of the plain view doctrine while Cumberbatch does not. 2 A more detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of these cases is set out in Cumberbatch ¶¶ 2-12.

2026CONCLUSION ¶ 30 For the foregoing reasons and consistent with our recent decision in Cumberbatch, 2026 VI 7, this Court concludes that the telephonic warrant was constitutionally defective.

2026United States v. Bishop, 338 F.3d 623, 626 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The Supreme Court also has indicated that the plain view exception permits the warrantless seizure of ‘objects dangerous in themselves.’”); see United States v. Babilonia, 854 F.3d 163, 180 (2d Cir. 2017) (holding that officers were justified in seizing cell phones pursuant to plain view as the result of the culmination of a months-long police investigation yielding evidence of cell phone use in murder-for-hire conspiracies).

2016While police officers executing a Terry vehicle search may generally search “containers” like the center console and glove compartment, see United States v. Holmes, 376 F.3d 270, 280-81 (4th Cir. .2004), “searching containers is limited to those that may contain weapons or whose illegality is immediately apparent.” United States v. Pollins, 145 F. Supp. 3d 525, 537 (D.

2016While police officers executing a Terry vehicle search may generally search “containers” like the center console and glove compartment, see United States v. Holmes, 376 F.3d 270, 280-81 (4th Cir. .2004), “searching containers is limited to those that may contain weapons or whose illegality is immediately apparent.” United States v. Pollins, 145 F. Supp. 3d 525, 537 (D.

2015See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741 , 103 S. Ct. 1535 , 75 L.

2015See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741 , 103 S. Ct. 1535 , 75 L.

2014“The plain-view doctrine is grounded on the proposition that once police are lawfully in a position to observe an item firsthand, its owner’.s privacy interest in that item is lost.” Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771, 103 S. Ct. 3319 , 77 L.

2014“The plain-view doctrine is grounded on the proposition that once police are lawfully in a position to observe an item firsthand, its owner’.s privacy interest in that item is lost.” Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771, 103 S. Ct. 3319 , 77 L.