Which statement accurately describes the plain view doctrine and its limitations?

• A. If evidence is in plain view during a lawful intrusion and immediately apparent as evidence, it can be seized; it cannot be the basis for a general search
• B. It allows searching the entire premises if anything is visible
• C. It permits seizing anything seen from outside the building
• D. It requires probable cause to be established before viewing anything

Answer: (A)

The plain view doctrine allows officers to seize evidence without a warrant when they are lawfully present at the location and they observe something in plain view that is immediately recognizable as evidence of a crime or contraband. The key limits are that the intrusion must be lawful, the item must be seen in plain view, and its incriminating nature must be readily apparent without any manipulation or search beyond what was authorized. Because of these limits, the doctrine does not authorize a general rummage through the entire premises; it only covers the item that is plainly seen and clearly evidentiary at the moment of observation. For example, during a lawful approach or search for specific items, noticing a bag of drugs on a table that is obviously illegal allows seizure without a new warrant, but it does not justify searching other rooms or seizing unrelated items. The rest of the choices misstate the rule: broad searches aren't permitted under plain view, viewing from outside the building doesn't automatically authorize seizure of anything merely seen, and viewing something does not require probable cause before you can observe it (probable cause to seize may still be needed for items that aren’t obviously incriminating).