The requirements of the plain view doctrine are discussed beginning on page 385 (Ferdico, 11th). There are two requirements or two prongs to the plain view doctrine.
1st prong: The officer must not unreasonably intrude on any person's reasonable expectation of privacy. If a person's reasonable expectation of privacy was invaded, then to satisfy the Fourth Amendment's mandate of reasonableness, the officer must have had a valid justification for having intruded upon or into a zone of privacy.
2nd prong: The incriminating character of the object to be seized must be immediately apparent to the officer. In particular, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the item he or she is observing, and intends to seize, is incriminating in nature.
Review the defense attorney's explanation of the plain view doctrine in the above video. After watching the video, and reviewing the requirement of the plain view doctrine beginning on page 385 - Ferdico 11th, answer the following questions.
A suspect in a robbery runs from the police. The suspect happens to run inside your house to hide from the police. You have no connection with the suspect or the robbery. The police chase the suspect into your house and apprehend him. During this apprehension the police notice that you have a marijuana plant growing in your living room.
1. May the police seize the marijuana plant and arrest you for possession of marijuana?
2. Explain why or why not the first prong of the plain view doctrine has been satisfied in this circumstance.
Bonus 1. Would it ever be necessary to apply the plain view doctrine while executing a valid search warrant on an apartment for stolen property?
Explain how this could happen.
Bonus 2. If you believe the answer to 1 is that it would be possible to have to use plain view to justify your actions while executing a valid search warrant - would it ever be necessary to obtain a 2nd search warrant to search the same apartment at the same time you are executing the first search warrant?