Which statement is NOT a restriction on plain view seizure?

Which statement is NOT a restriction on plain view seizure?

• A. The officer must be lawfully in the place where the object is seen.
• B. The items seized must be obviously identifiable as contraband or evidence.
• C. The officer may seize any item in plain view regardless of its significance.
• D. The officer has constitutional access to the item to be seized.

Answer: (C)

Plain view seizure works only when three things line up: the officer is lawfully in the position to see the item, the item is in plain view, and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent so there’s probable cause to seize. Because the item must be obviously contraband or evidence, the idea that an officer may seize any item in plain view regardless of its significance is not correct. Plain view does not authorize grabbing ordinary objects simply because they happen to be visible; the item must clearly relate to criminal activity or be evidence. The other statements reflect valid limits—being in a lawful location, recognizing the item as (or immediately identifying it as) evidence or contraband, and having lawful access to seize it.

Plain view seizure works only when three things line up: the officer is lawfully in the position to see the item, the item is in plain view, and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent so there’s probable cause to seize. Because the item must be obviously contraband or evidence, the idea that an officer may seize any item in plain view regardless of its significance is not correct. Plain view does not authorize grabbing ordinary objects simply because they happen to be visible; the item must clearly relate to criminal activity or be evidence. The other statements reflect valid limits—being in a lawful location, recognizing the item as (or immediately identifying it as) evidence or contraband, and having lawful access to seize it.