finding that an officer had probable cause that an “opaque, green party balloon, knotted about one-half inch from the tip” contained drugs because “the distinctive character of the balloon itself spoke volumes as to its contents—particularly to the trained eye of the officer,” and the officer “was able to observe the contents of the glove compartment of [the defendant’s] car, which revealed further suggestions that [he] was engaged in ... possession of illicit substances.”
How later courts described this case
- finding that an officer had probable cause that an “opaque, green party balloon, knotted about one-half inch from the tip” contained drugs because “the distinctive character of the balloon itself spoke volumes as to its contents—particularly to the trained eye of the officer,” and the officer “was able to observe the contents of the glove compartment of [the defendant’s] car, which revealed further suggestions that [he] was engaged in ... possession of illicit substances.”
- stating that “[w]hen a police officer has [lawfully] observed an object in ‘plain view,’ the owner’s remaining interests in the object are merely those of possession and ownership . . . . Likewise, . . . requiring police to obtain a warrant once they have [lawfully] obtained a first-hand perception of contraband, stolen property, or incriminating evidence generally would be a ‘needless inconvenience,’ . . . that might involve danger to the police and public”
- holding that an officer’s bending down and using a flashlight in order to obtain a better view into a car did not violate the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights because "[t]here is no legitimate expectation of privacy shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers” (citations omitted)
- holding that probable cause merely requires that facts available to officer would warrant man of reasonable caution to believe that items are contraband; probable cause did not require showing that such belief was correct or more likely true than false; and police officer did not have to have “near certainty” or “know” that items were contraband in order to have probable cause
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) — not on the Supreme Court's list
460 US 730, 740, 103 S Ct 1535, 75 L Ed 2d 502 (1983), abrogated on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 US 128, 110 S Ct 2301, 110 L Ed 2d 112 (1990) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in interior of automobile that may be viewed from outside, even when officer used flashlight to illuminate interior and specially positioned himself to see inside)
Supreme Court of the United StatesJun 4, 19903 citing opinionsother groundsunconfirmed confidenceRead itQuestioned by United States v. Johnnie Mack Morgan (82-5441) and George Brooks, Jr. (82-5442), Defendants, 744 F.2d 1215 (1985)
While Texas v. Brown, supra, casts some doubts on the continuing validity of that requirement,6 it has not been expressly rejected.
The opinion
Justice White,
concurring.
While joining Justice Rehnquist’s plurality opinion, I continue to disagree with the views of four Justices in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 469 (1971), that plain-view seizures are valid only if the viewing is “inadvertent.” Nor does the Court purport to endorse that view in its opinions today.