43 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2026 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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. Claibornegreen2 sentences2024State v. Claiborne, 120 Idaho 581, 586 , 818 P.2d 285, 290 (1991). 2024State v. Claiborne, 120 Idaho 581, 586 , 818 P.2d 285, 290 (1991). | 4 | 6 |
Horton v. Californiagreen2 sentences2008Thus, the plain view exception applies to warrantless seizures of readily visible items, not warrantless searches.” State v. Christensen, 131 Idaho 143, 146 , 953 P.2d 583, 586 (1998); accord, Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 134-36 , 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2306-08 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112, 121-23 (1990). “[Application of the plain view exception also requires that officer have ‘a lawful right of access to the object itself.’ ” State v. Buti, 131 Idaho 793, 799 , 964 P.2d 660, 666 (1998) (quoting from Horton at 137, 110 S.Ct. at 2308, 110 L.Ed.2d at 123 ). 2008Thus, the plain view exception applies to warrantless seizures of readily visible items, not warrantless searches.” State v. Christensen, 131 Idaho 143, 146 , 953 P.2d 583, 586 (1998); accord, Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 134-36 , 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2306-08 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112, 121-23 (1990). “[Application of the plain view exception also requires that officer have ‘a lawful right of access to the object itself.’ ” State v. Buti, 131 Idaho 793, 799 , 964 P.2d 660, 666 (1998) (quoting from Horton at 137, 110 S.Ct. at 2308, 110 L.Ed.2d at 123 ). | 3 | 8 |
State v. Hagedorngreen2 sentences1998In upholding the seizure under the plain view exception, the district court held that the officer had observed the sweatshirt from a location where he had a right to be and that it was immediately apparent that the sweatshirt was evidence as required by State v. Hagedorn, 129 Idaho 155 , 922 P.2d 1081 (Ct.App.1996). 1998In upholding the seizure under the plain view exception, the district court held that the officer had observed the sweatshirt from a location where he had a right to be and that it was immediately apparent that the sweatshirt was evidence as required by State v. Hagedorn, 129 Idaho 155 , 922 P.2d 1081 (Ct.App.1996). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Christensengreen2 sentences2014State v. Christensen, 131 Idaho 143, 146 , 953 P.2d 583, 586 (1998) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). 4 Under those definitions, the plain view exception did not justify the officer’s entry into the vehicle in this case. 2014State v. Christensen, 131 Idaho 143, 146 , 953 P.2d 583, 586 (1998) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). 4 Under those definitions, the plain view exception did not justify the officer’s entry into the vehicle in this case. | 2 | 3 |
Texas v. Browngreen2 sentences1988Rather, as later noted by the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), the police simply must refrain from using the plain view doctrine as a pretext for making a search or seizure that otherwise would require a warrant. 1988Rather, as later noted by the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), the police simply must refrain from using the plain view doctrine as a pretext for making a search or seizure that otherwise would require a warrant. | 2 | 3 |
Baldwin v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Baldwin v. State, 145 Idaho 148, 155 , 177 P.3d 362, 369 (2008). 2024Baldwin v. State, 145 Idaho 148, 155 , 177 P.3d 362, 369 (2008). | 2 | 2 |
Soldal v. Cook Countygreen2 sentences2015Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 66 (1992); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741-42 (1983); Buterbaugh, 138 Idaho at 99 , 57 P.3d at 810 . 2002Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56, 66 , 113 S.Ct. 538, 546 , 121 L.Ed.2d 450, 461 (1992); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741-42 , 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1543 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502, 513 (1983); Claiborne, 120 Idaho at 586 , 818 P.2d at 290 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2014The plain view exception applies “only to the circumstances where an officer has a prior justification for an intrusion into a constitutionally protected area or activity and in the course of that intrusion spots and seizes incriminating evidence.” State v. Clark, 124 Idaho 308, 312 , 859 P.2d 344, 348 (Ct. App. 1993) (emphasis added). 2 Thus, the plain view doctrine would justify the seizure of evidence only if some other warrant exception justified the officer’s entry into the van. 2014The plain view exception applies “only to the circumstances where an officer has a prior justification for an intrusion into a constitutionally protected area or activity and in the course of that intrusion spots and seizes incriminating evidence.” State v. Clark, 124 Idaho 308, 312 , 859 P.2d 344, 348 (Ct. App. 1993) (emphasis added). 2 Thus, the plain view doctrine would justify the seizure of evidence only if some other warrant exception justified the officer’s entry into the van. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Butigreen2 sentences2008Thus, the plain view exception applies to warrantless seizures of readily visible items, not warrantless searches.” State v. Christensen, 131 Idaho 143, 146 , 953 P.2d 583, 586 (1998); accord, Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 134-36 , 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2306-08 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112, 121-23 (1990). “[Application of the plain view exception also requires that officer have ‘a lawful right of access to the object itself.’ ” State v. Buti, 131 Idaho 793, 799 , 964 P.2d 660, 666 (1998) (quoting from Horton at 137, 110 S.Ct. at 2308, 110 L.Ed.2d at 123 ). 2008Thus, the plain view exception applies to warrantless seizures of readily visible items, not warrantless searches.” State v. Christensen, 131 Idaho 143, 146 , 953 P.2d 583, 586 (1998); accord, Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 134-36 , 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2306-08 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112, 121-23 (1990). “[Application of the plain view exception also requires that officer have ‘a lawful right of access to the object itself.’ ” State v. Buti, 131 Idaho 793, 799 , 964 P.2d 660, 666 (1998) (quoting from Horton at 137, 110 S.Ct. at 2308, 110 L.Ed.2d at 123 ). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pontiergreen2 sentences1978The plain-view doctrine was recognized in Idaho in State v. Pontier, 95 Idaho 707 , 518 P.2d 969 (1974). 1978The plain-view doctrine was recognized in Idaho in State v. Pontier, 95 Idaho 707 , 518 P.2d 969 (1974). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Hoskinsgreen2 sentences2023See Wilson, 169 Idaho at 347 , 495 P.3d at 1035 (the State failed to address the timing of an officer’s reasonable suspicion, and could not do so for the first time on appeal); Hoskins, 165 Idaho at 221 , 443 P.3d at 235 (finding the State argued consent below and therefore the plain-view doctrine argument not preserved on appeal); 1 The State argues on appeal that it is simply common knowledge that Hill’s citable offenses would be a violation of his probation. 4 Gonzales, 165 Idaho at 672-73 , 450 P.3d at 320-21 (the State could not argue new instance of seizure and attenuation doctrine for t 2023See Wilson, 169 Idaho at 347 , 495 P.3d at 1035 (the State failed to address the timing of an officer’s reasonable suspicion, and could not do so for the first time on appeal); Hoskins, 165 Idaho at 221 , 443 P.3d at 235 (finding the State argued consent below and therefore the plain-view doctrine argument not preserved on appeal); 1 The State argues on appeal that it is simply common knowledge that Hill’s citable offenses would be a violation of his probation. 4 Gonzales, 165 Idaho at 672-73 , 450 P.3d at 320-21 (the State could not argue new instance of seizure and attenuation doctrine for t | 1 | 2 |
State v. Buterbaughgreen2 sentences2015Horton, 496 U.S. at 135-36 ; Buterbaugh, 138 Idaho at 99 , 57 P.3d at 810 . 2015Horton, 496 U.S. at 135-36 ; Buterbaugh, 138 Idaho at 99 , 57 P.3d at 810 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bussardgreen2 sentences2025Bussard, 114 Idaho at 787-88 , 760 P.2d at 1203-04 . 2025Bussard, 114 Idaho at 787-88 , 760 P.2d at 1203-04 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Calderogreen2 sentences2025The plain view doctrine requires: “(1) An officer legitimately must be in a position to view the object. (2) It must be immediately apparent to the officer that the object may be evidence of a crime. (3) The officer must not have known previously that the object was located where he seized it.” State v. Caldero, 109 Idaho 80, 84 , 705 P.2d 85, 89 (Ct. App. 1985). 1 Cordova also points to a very limited exchange where the officers are discussing whether or not some unknown object may contain child porn, concluding minutes later that it did not. 2025The plain view doctrine requires: “(1) An officer legitimately must be in a position to view the object. (2) It must be immediately apparent to the officer that the object may be evidence of a crime. (3) The officer must not have known previously that the object was located where he seized it.” State v. Caldero, 109 Idaho 80, 84 , 705 P.2d 85, 89 (Ct. App. 1985). 1 Cordova also points to a very limited exchange where the officers are discussing whether or not some unknown object may contain child porn, concluding minutes later that it did not. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2023See Wilson, 169 Idaho at 347 , 495 P.3d at 1035 (the State failed to address the timing of an officer’s reasonable suspicion, and could not do so for the first time on appeal); Hoskins, 165 Idaho at 221 , 443 P.3d at 235 (finding the State argued consent below and therefore the plain-view doctrine argument not preserved on appeal); 1 The State argues on appeal that it is simply common knowledge that Hill’s citable offenses would be a violation of his probation. 4 Gonzales, 165 Idaho at 672-73 , 450 P.3d at 320-21 (the State could not argue new instance of seizure and attenuation doctrine for t 2023See Wilson, 169 Idaho at 347 , 495 P.3d at 1035 (the State failed to address the timing of an officer’s reasonable suspicion, and could not do so for the first time on appeal); Hoskins, 165 Idaho at 221 , 443 P.3d at 235 (finding the State argued consent below and therefore the plain-view doctrine argument not preserved on appeal); 1 The State argues on appeal that it is simply common knowledge that Hill’s citable offenses would be a violation of his probation. 4 Gonzales, 165 Idaho at 672-73 , 450 P.3d at 320-21 (the State could not argue new instance of seizure and attenuation doctrine for t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gonzales, Jr.green2 sentences2023See Wilson, 169 Idaho at 347 , 495 P.3d at 1035 (the State failed to address the timing of an officer’s reasonable suspicion, and could not do so for the first time on appeal); Hoskins, 165 Idaho at 221 , 443 P.3d at 235 (finding the State argued consent below and therefore the plain-view doctrine argument not preserved on appeal); 1 The State argues on appeal that it is simply common knowledge that Hill’s citable offenses would be a violation of his probation. 4 Gonzales, 165 Idaho at 672-73 , 450 P.3d at 320-21 (the State could not argue new instance of seizure and attenuation doctrine for t 2023See Wilson, 169 Idaho at 347 , 495 P.3d at 1035 (the State failed to address the timing of an officer’s reasonable suspicion, and could not do so for the first time on appeal); Hoskins, 165 Idaho at 221 , 443 P.3d at 235 (finding the State argued consent below and therefore the plain-view doctrine argument not preserved on appeal); 1 The State argues on appeal that it is simply common knowledge that Hill’s citable offenses would be a violation of his probation. 4 Gonzales, 165 Idaho at 672-73 , 450 P.3d at 320-21 (the State could not argue new instance of seizure and attenuation doctrine for t | 1 | 1 |
| McDermott v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences1996See State v. Ramirez, 121 Idaho 319 , 824 P.2d 894 (Ct.App.1991) (Seizure of property hi plain view involves no invasion of privacy and requires no warrant.). 1996See State v. Ramirez, 121 Idaho 319 , 824 P.2d 894 (Ct.App.1991) (Seizure of property hi plain view involves no invasion of privacy and requires no warrant.). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Younggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Allgoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2025Sallings 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 This motion was untimely, but the State did not object on that ground. 2 also contends the district court erred in finding the search of his jacket was justified under both the plain-view exception and the consent exception to the warrant requirement and thus erred in denying his second motion to suppress. 2024Additionally, the district court concluded the traffic stop was not unlawfully extended because Officer Anderson 1 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 had reasonable suspicion supporting the investigation into potential drug activity based on his observation of the straw. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Harris v. United States
green
2 sentences1977The plain view doctrine as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 992 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968) is that “objects falling in the plain view of an arresting officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.” The plain view doctrine has been applied in cases in which officers standing on public property looked in car windows, Nunez v. United States, 370 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1967), or the windows of dwellings, People v. Wright, 41 Ill.2d 170 , 242 N.E.2d 180 (1968), cert. 1977The plain view doctrine as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 , 88 S.Ct. 992 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968) is that “objects falling in the plain view of an arresting officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.” The plain view doctrine has been applied in cases in which officers standing on public property looked in car windows, Nunez v. United States, 370 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1967), or the windows of dwellings, People v. Wright, 41 Ill.2d 170 , 242 N.E.2d 180 (1968), cert. | 2 | 1977–1985 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences1974Appellant urges that Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), limits the plain view doctrine to “inadvertent” observations. 1974Appellant urges that Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), limits the plain view doctrine to “inadvertent” observations. | 2 | 1974–1983 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
1 sentence2019Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 243-44 n.13 1 Though plain view and open view are used interchangeably in the district court’s ruling, it is clear from the record that both the parties and the court are referring to the open view doctrine because the plain view doctrine does not apply. 2 Nevertheless, the VIN was in open view as the district court held, while the first officer may have had to reach into the bed of the truck and between the straps holding the motorcycle to photograph the VIN, another officer merely shined his flashlight on the VIN and wrote it down. 3 (1983). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Weaver
green
2 sentences2019On appeal, the State argues that the plain-view doctrine supplies the "well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement." Id. 2019State v. Weaver, 127 Idaho 288 , 290, 900 P.2d 196 , 198 (1995). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
California v. Carney
green
2 sentences2016Carney, 471 U.S. at 392 , 105 S.Ct. at 2069 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 413 . 2016Carney, 471 U.S. at 392 , 105 S.Ct. at 2069 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 413 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Newman
green
2 sentences2015Under these circumstances, there was a practical, nontechnical probability that the pill was incriminating evidence, see Newman, 149 Idaho at 599-600 , 237 P.3d at 1225-26 , such that Officer Loosli could retrieve the pill under the plain view doctrine. 2015Under these circumstances, there was a practical, nontechnical probability that the pill was incriminating evidence, see Newman, 149 Idaho at 599-600 , 237 P.3d at 1225-26 , such that Officer Loosli could retrieve the pill under the plain view doctrine. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
1 sentence2015ANALYSIS Araiza contends the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the officer’s act of retrieving the pill from the car was a search not permissible under either the plain view doctrine or Araiza’s parole agreement, and the subsequent search of his vehicle was not 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 2 permitted by the parole agreement or supported by probable cause. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Arizona v. Hicks
green
2 sentences2013In Hicks , the Supreme Court stated, “We do not say, of course, that a seizure can never be justified on less than probable cause.” 480 U.S. at 327 , 107 S.Ct. at 1154 , 94 L.Ed.2d at 355 . 2013In Hicks , the Supreme Court stated, “We do not say, of course, that a seizure can never be justified on less than probable cause.” 480 U.S. at 327 , 107 S.Ct. at 1154 , 94 L.Ed.2d at 355 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Bower
green
2 sentences2002Buterbaugh’s second argument — that Sergeant Baker’s entry of Buterbaugh’s residence was illegal because the officer was not there for purposes of responding to the fire — has been recently resolved by this Court in State v. Bower, 135 Idaho 554 , 21 P.3d 491 (Ct.App.2001), a decision that was issued after the resolution of Buterbaugh’s suppression motion. 2002Buterbaugh’s second argument — that Sergeant Baker’s entry of Buterbaugh’s residence was illegal because the officer was not there for purposes of responding to the fire — has been recently resolved by this Court in State v. Bower, 135 Idaho 554 , 21 P.3d 491 (Ct.App.2001), a decision that was issued after the resolution of Buterbaugh’s suppression motion. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Northover
green
2 sentences2001State v. Northover, 133 Idaho 655 , 663 n. 2, 991 P.2d 380 , 388 n. 2 (Ct.App.1999) (citing State v. Hagedorn, 129 Idaho 155, 159 , 922 P.2d 1081, 1085 (Ct.App.1996)). 2001State v. Northover, 133 Idaho 655 , 663 n. 2, 991 P.2d 380 , 388 n. 2 (Ct.App.1999) (citing State v. Hagedorn, 129 Idaho 155, 159 , 922 P.2d 1081, 1085 (Ct.App.1996)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Bell
green
1 sentence2001The court held that “where firefighters have lawfully discovered evidence of criminal activity under the plain view doctrine, it is not necessary for sheriffs officers to obtain a warrant before entering a residence to seize the evidence.” Bell, 737 P.2d at 259 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Michigan v. Tyler
green
2 sentences1996In Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 , 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978), the later entries made within hours of the initial intrusion, were “no more than an actual continuation of the first, and the lack of a warrant thus did not invalidate the resulting seizure of evidence.” Id. at 511 , 98 S.Ct. at 1951 . 1996In Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 , 98 S.Ct. 1942 , 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978), the later entries made within hours of the initial intrusion, were “no more than an actual continuation of the first, and the lack of a warrant thus did not invalidate the resulting seizure of evidence.” Id. at 511 , 98 S.Ct. at 1951 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| United States v. Ventresca green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Osborne v. Ohio green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Rusho green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| United States v. Robert S. Hale green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| City of New York v. Smoss Enterprises Corp. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Maricle v. United States green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Hale v. United States green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Hornblower v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| New York v. Belton red | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Carroll v. United States green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Ellison v. United States green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Victor Louis Nunez v. United States green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Knight v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Turner v. United States green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| In re Dennett neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| The People v. Wright green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Guidi v. Superior Court green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Rowe neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.