7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina 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. Browngreen2 sentences2015State v. Brown, 401 S.C. 82, 89 , 736 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2012) (citation omitted). “[OJbjects falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer who is rightfully in a position to view the objects are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.” Wright, 391 S.C. at 443 , 706 S.E.2d at 327 . 2015State v. Brown, 401 S.C. 82, 89 , 736 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2012) (citation omitted). “[OJbjects falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer who is rightfully in a position to view the objects are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.” Wright, 391 S.C. at 443 , 706 S.E.2d at 327 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beckhamgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Beckham , 334 S.C. 302, 317 , 513 S.E.2d 606, 613 (1999) (stating the plain view exception to the search warrant requirement requires that: (1) the initial intrusion which afforded the authorities the plain view was lawful; (2) the discovery of the evidence was inadvertent; and (3) the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent to the seizing authorities)(emphasis added). 2007See State v. Beckham , 334 S.C. 302, 317 , 513 S.E.2d 606, 613 (1999) (stating the plain view exception to the search warrant requirement requires that: (1) the initial intrusion which afforded the authorities the plain view was lawful; (2) the discovery of the evidence was inadvertent; and (3) the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately apparent to the seizing authorities)(emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Culbreathgreen2 sentences1997State v. Culbreath, 300 S.C. 232, 237 , 387 S.E.2d 255, 257 (1990). [4] While the first two prongs of test are easily met in this case, the satisfaction of the third prong is not as readily apparent. 1997State v. Culbreath, 300 S.C. 232, 237 , 387 S.E.2d 255, 257 (1990). [4] While the first two prongs of test are easily met in this case, the satisfaction of the third prong is not as readily apparent. | 1 | 1 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences1983See generally, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 , 91 S. Ct. 2022 , 29 L. 1983See generally, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 , 91 S. Ct. 2022 , 29 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Weaver
green
2 sentences2019"The automobile exception to the search warrant requirement is based on: (1) the ready mobility of automobiles and the potential that evidence may be lost or destroyed before a warrant is obtained and (2) the lessened expectation of privacy in motor vehicles [that] are subject to government regulation." Id. 2014“The automobile exception to the search warrant requirement is based on: (1) the ready mobility of automobiles and the potential that evidence may be lost or destroyed before a warrant is obtained and (2) the lessened expectation of privacy in motor vehicles which are subject to government regulation.” Weaver, 374 S.C. at 320 , 649 S.E.2d at 482 . | 2 | 2014–2019 |
State v. Wright
green
2 sentences2015State v. Brown, 401 S.C. 82, 89 , 736 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2012) (citation omitted). “[OJbjects falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer who is rightfully in a position to view the objects are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.” Wright, 391 S.C. at 443 , 706 S.E.2d at 327 . 2015State v. Brown, 401 S.C. 82, 89 , 736 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2012) (citation omitted). “[OJbjects falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer who is rightfully in a position to view the objects are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.” Wright, 391 S.C. at 443 , 706 S.E.2d at 327 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
California v. Carney
green
2 sentences2007California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985). 2007California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Cox
green
2 sentences2007State v. Cox, 290 S.C. 489 , 351 S.E.2d 570 (1986). 2007State v. Cox, 290 S.C. 489 , 351 S.E.2d 570 (1986). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Cox
green
2 sentences2007State v. Cox, 290 S.C. 489 , 351 S.E.2d 570 (1986). 2007State v. Cox, 290 S.C. 489 , 351 S.E.2d 570 (1986). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.