Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1973"In the recent case of Harris v United States, 390 US 234, 236 ; 88 S Ct 992, 993 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067, 1069 (1968), the Court said: " 'It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an oflicer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.’ ” Also see People v Jenkins, 23 Mich App 39 ; 178 NW2d 103 (1970). *259 The open view rule is applicable to the facts in the instant case and we agree with the trial court’s ruling that the silver purse was admissible, it having been seen in plain view by the officers from 1973"In the recent case of Harris v United States, 390 US 234, 236 ; 88 S Ct 992, 993 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067, 1069 (1968), the Court said: " 'It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an oflicer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.’ ” Also see People v Jenkins, 23 Mich App 39 ; 178 NW2d 103 (1970). *259 The open view rule is applicable to the facts in the instant case and we agree with the trial court’s ruling that the silver purse was admissible, it having been seen in plain view by the officers from | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas v. Brown
green
2 sentences2018If his vantage point was not within a constitutionally protected area, his observation using only his normal vision to see that which was open to public gaze, was permissible under the open view doctrine. [Citations and quotation marks omitted.] The Idaho court relied in part on Texas v. Brown , 460 U.S. 730 , 739, 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed. 2d 502 (1983), wherein the United States Supreme Court indicated that the plain-view doctrine provides a basis to seize an item when the officer's access to the object had some previous justification under the Fourth Amendment. 2018If his vantage point was not within a constitutionally protected area, his observation using only his normal vision to see that which was open to public gaze, was permissible under the open view doctrine. [Citations and quotation marks omitted.] The Idaho court relied in part on Texas v. Brown , 460 U.S. 730 , 739, 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed. 2d 502 (1983), wherein the United States Supreme Court indicated that the plain-view doctrine provides a basis to seize an item when the officer's access to the object had some previous justification under the Fourth Amendment. | 3 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Rigoulot
green
2 sentences2015For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the timing and manner of the two nighttime searches involved in this case place them outside the scope of the open view doctrine articulated in [State v ]Rigoulot[, 123 Idaho 267 ; 846 P2d 918 (1992),] and [State v ]Clark[, 124 Idaho 308 ; 859 P2d 344 (1993)]. 2015For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the timing and manner of the two nighttime searches involved in this case place them outside the scope of the open view doctrine articulated in [State v ]Rigoulot[, 123 Idaho 267 ; 846 P2d 918 (1992),] and [State v ]Clark[, 124 Idaho 308 ; 859 P2d 344 (1993)]. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2015For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the timing and manner of the two nighttime searches involved in this case place them outside the scope of the open view doctrine articulated in [State v ]Rigoulot[, 123 Idaho 267 ; 846 P2d 918 (1992),] and [State v ]Clark[, 124 Idaho 308 ; 859 P2d 344 (1993)]. 2015For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the timing and manner of the two nighttime searches involved in this case place them outside the scope of the open view doctrine articulated in [State v ]Rigoulot[, 123 Idaho 267 ; 846 P2d 918 (1992),] and [State v ]Clark[, 124 Idaho 308 ; 859 P2d 344 (1993)]. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Jenkins
neutral
2 sentences1973"In the recent case of Harris v United States, 390 US 234, 236 ; 88 S Ct 992, 993 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067, 1069 (1968), the Court said: " 'It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an oflicer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.’ ” Also see People v Jenkins, 23 Mich App 39 ; 178 NW2d 103 (1970). *259 The open view rule is applicable to the facts in the instant case and we agree with the trial court’s ruling that the silver purse was admissible, it having been seen in plain view by the officers from 1973"In the recent case of Harris v United States, 390 US 234, 236 ; 88 S Ct 992, 993 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067, 1069 (1968), the Court said: " 'It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an oflicer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.’ ” Also see People v Jenkins, 23 Mich App 39 ; 178 NW2d 103 (1970). *259 The open view rule is applicable to the facts in the instant case and we agree with the trial court’s ruling that the silver purse was admissible, it having been seen in plain view by the officers from | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.