State v. Warness
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SCHROEDER, Judge.
This appeal from a conviction and $100 fine for possession of marijuana requires us to determine whether the trial court properly applied the “plain view” doctrine in holding that the evidence of contraband was not the product of an unlawful search or seizure. We hold that in the circumstances of this case, where the police officers were lawfully on the premises of the appellant, inadvertently discovered the contraband while it was lying in plain view, and identified it on the basis of visual inspection, the conviction and sentence must be affirmed.
The facts leading up…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Harris v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Albert Douglas Davis v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- People v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- United States v. William Garland BradshawCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1974
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Sumdum v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. DonovanCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1977
- State v. SalazarCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1976
- State v. StarrCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1978
- People v. WoolseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.