OH1: Inadvertence for plain view is a fact question

The inadvertence requirement of plain view here was a fact question. Police showed up on a wellness check about an allegedly suicidal person. Here it was a syringe cap that led to finding the syringe. State v. Hyatt, 2024-Ohio-2422 (1st Dist. June 26, 2024). [There seem to be situations where it could be a mixed question. That was my first reaction.]

The government had the burden for justification on a warrantless search, and it failed. “Based on these numerous inconsistencies, the Court does not credit the testimony of Arroyo that he saw marijuana in the vehicle prior to opening the door and searching the interior of the vehicle. Because the Court is unable to determine the sequence of events that transpired in this case, the Court finds that the Government has not met its burden of demonstrating that the plain-view doctrine applies to the search of the vehicle.” United States v. Jeffers, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112513 (D.V.I. June 26, 2024).*

It was reasonable for the officer to go to defendant’s hotel room door and smell marijuana from inside. Even if the dog sniff that followed was illegal, there was plenty of probable cause without it. State v. Hanks, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 274 (June 27, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Attenuation, Burden of proof, Dog sniff, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.