holding that there was no search when police “observe[d] that which is in the plain view of an officer who [was] rightfully in a position to have that view”
How later courts described this case
- holding that there was no search when police “observe[d] that which is in the plain view of an officer who [was] rightfully in a position to have that view”
- holding that observation of “that which is in the plain view of an officer who is rightfully in a position to have that view” is not a search
- holding that the officer did not perform a search when he shone a flashlight into the back of the car
- in speeding stop, officer shined his flashlight into interior of car and saw bag of marijuana, which he seized — not an illegal search and seizure— not a search to observe that which is in the plain view of an officer who is rightfully in a position to have that view
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FITZGERALD, Justice
(concurring).
I agree that the warrantless search of the motor vehicle at the place it was stopped on the highway by the police was valid. My reasoning is reached somewhat differently from that of the plurality. They uphold the search as one incidental to a lawful arrest. I have some difficulty with this view in light of the restrictions placed on such searches by Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).
At the time the officer made his search, he had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained marijuana. Under these cir *1169 cumstances, the police were authorized either to make a search of the vehicle or to impound it until a search warrant might be obtained. 1
. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).