Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Applicable test Edit
For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires the officer to be:
- lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed,
- the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object, and
- the incriminating character of the object must be "immediately apparent."
In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks, the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.
In Horton v. California, the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent. Previously, "inadvertent discovery" was required leading to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery."
- ↑ Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (full-text).
- ↑ 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (full-text).
- ↑ "U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment."
- ↑ 496 U.S. 128 (1990).
- ↑ See Horton, 496 U.S. at 136-137. See also United States v. Legg, 18 F.3d 240, 242 (4th Cir. 1994) (full-text) (restating the Horton rules).
See also Edit
|This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).|