State v. Chrisman

(dissenting) — I dissent. The officer had in custody an admitted minor in possession of alcohol. The minor initiated the journey to his room to obtain identification.1

*719The majority holds that the plain view exception fails because the officer did not have a prior justification for the intrusion. What the majority fails to explain convincingly is why the officer was not entitled to keep the arrested person within his sight. The majority's conclusion does not rest upon any cited authority, but only upon its bare assertion. That conclusion is inconsistent with existing precedent, which indicates…