One of the fundamental protections afforded by the US and California Constitutions is the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Where law enforcement has failed to first obtain a search warrant but has seized property it seeks to use against you in a criminal prosecution, it may assert the plain view doctrine as a reason the actions it took were valid.
Background Considerations
There are numerous interactions between the police and the citizenry, and few are under the circumstances wherein a valid search warrant has been served. In analyzing the appropriateness of the police action, your Los Angeles criminal attorney should focus initially on where exactly the officer was and his or her reason for being there.
The Horn Test
Owing to the 1990 US Supreme Court case that established the principles, the Horn test holds that police officers may look for evidence of illicit behavior that is in plain sight if they did not violate the 4th Amendment by being in the place they were. Specifically, the test is:
- Was the prior intrusion valid?
- Was the object observable in plain view?
- Was the incriminating nature of the object immediately apparent?
Valid Intrusion
Certainly a valid search warrant qualifies as a valid intrusion, but other circumstances do as well. For example, consent may be given for entry, although not necessarily by the individual against whom criminal charges are filed. The owner or controller of the property in many cases can provide valid consent for an entry or search. Additionally, exigent circumstances may provide the police grounds for a valid intrusion, as when they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, for example.
Plain View
The issue regarding the plain view requirement is primarily one of the permissible scope of the search. For instance, if the police are searching for a gun, they may look in a desk drawer; if they are looking for a 72 inch flat screen television, items in the desk drawer would not be in plain view in inconsideration of the purpose and scope of the police intrusion.
Immediately Apparent
The incriminating nature of an object may not be readily apparent without further investigation. The issue becomes one of determining whether the additional investigation constitutes a separate search that may not be justified by the initial reason for the police intrusion. For instance, the US Supreme held that where the police were properly on the premises investigating a shooting and observed stereo equipment they suspected was stolen, moving the components to record the serial numbers to prove it was stolen was an improper search (Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 [1987].)
