The plain view doctrine allows police to seize property without a warrant if its criminality is readily apparent.

The doctrine requires that:

(i) The officer be lawfully in a position from which he observes the property,(ii) The incriminating character of the property is immediately apparent, and(iii) The officer had a lawful right of access to the property.

The seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity.

Incriminating Character Not Always Immediately Apparent

The Supreme Court has described “immediately apparent” as “an unhappy choice of words, since it can be taken to imply that an unduly high degree of certainty as to the incriminatory character of evidence is necessary.” Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 741 (1983).

Essentially, the “immediately apparent” element hinges on a probable cause determination; it does not require a law enforcement officer to know that an item is contraband or evidence of a crime. See People v. Jones, 215 Ill. 2d 261, 277 (2005).

The appropriate question is would a reasonable person in that officer’s position believe that a crime was being or had been committed?

Search & Seizure Resource Page

To see more

Illinois Search And Seizure Resources and case law go here.

Plain View Doctrine Examples

Below are plain view doctrine examples taken from the the case law.

People v. California

In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990), the Supreme Court officially adopted a long-recognized standard that, for police to properly seize evidence in plain view, its “incriminating character” must be immediately apparent.

People v. Humphrey

In People v. Humphrey, 361 Ill. App. 3d 947 (2005) a police officer stopped a motorist for speeding. During the stop, the officer noticed a container holding hundreds of pills near the passenger’s feet.

The court held that the officer improperly seized the pills because he did not know that they contained pseudoephedrine or whether possessing the pills constituted a crime.

People v. Lee

People v. Lee, 2018 IL App (3d) 160100 (August). Episode 529 (Duration 4:49)

The officer said the baggie looked like it had oatmeal in it, later testing revealed it to be cocaine.

Police had a warrant to search defendant’s home. They suspected he was involved in a shooting.  Sterling police investigated defendant’s involvement in a shooting.

The Drugs

A Detective found drugs underneath defendant’s bed sheets after he pulled back defendant’s bed sheets. It was a knotted, plastic bags that contained a brown, powdery substance.

Issue

Defendant claimed that the substance’s incriminating character was not immediately apparent because the detective admittedly did not know that the substance contained cocaine.

Holding

The court held this officer had probable cause to seize the substance the moment he discovered it hidden beneath defendant’s bed sheets in packaging commonly used to store illicit d...