Due Process #13

Plain View

Plain View Requirement

• Officer must observe item at a lawful vantage point

• Have right to physical access

• Its nature as an incriminating object is immediately apparent when observed 

Rationale for PV seizures?

To require an officer to obtain a warrant to seize what he discovers in plain view, has to be a needless inconvenience and sometimes might be dangerous to the evidence (destroyed) or the police themselves

AZ v. Hicks facts?

• Bullet fired through floor, injury

• Police enter to find victim, shooter, and weapons

• Officer also then goes through stolen stereos and seizes them

  • physically moves around components 

AZ v. Hicks issue?

Whether there was a seizure of the stereo equipment and whether there was a search. If it was a plain view search.

AZ v. Hicks holding?

In favor of Hicks

AZ v. hicks reasoning?

• 3 things for plain view

• Were they in a lawful vantage point? Did they have a lawful meaning/probable cause to be there?

  • Yes, the police had a right to look for firearms because bullets were shot

• Was the stereo equipment immediately apparent as illegal?

  • No, is not automatically illegal or apparent that having something nice in a not so nice apartment is apparent as illegal

• Did officers have a right of physical access? Did they have a right of physical access to the serial numbers of the equipment?

  • By moving the stereo equipment to get numbers, it was a search and exceeded the exigency scope of why they were there in the first place

• What if the serial numbers were visible? A different outcome?

  • No, it was still not immediately apparent that it was illegal, even if the serial numbers were visible