173 Ind. App. 482 - May v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Indiana has allowed the warrantless seizure of evidence which was within the plain view of an arresting officer. Lindsey v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 431 , 204 N.E.2d 357 ; Brown v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 358 , 157 N.E.2d 174 ; Johnson v. State (1975), 163 Ind.App. 684 , 325 N.E.2d 859 . The standard followed has generally been one of reasonable police behavior under the particular circumstances of each case. ‡ ífc ‡ ^5 if! * “One of the critical elements involved in allowing the warrantless seizure of contraband from a private place, because it was observed in plain view, is that the seizing police officers must be justified in their having been in the particular place of observation. * * * * * * “In this context it is clear that the evidence which was in plain view was observed by an officer rightfully in a position to have such a view and as such should not be regarded as having been discovered through a search. Johnson v. State, supra (1975), 163 Ind.App. 684 , 324 N.E. 859 ; see also, Alcorn v. State, supra (1970), 255 Ind. 491 , 265 N.E.2d 413 ; United States v. Hanahan (7 Cir. 1971), 442 F.2d 649 . Once the contraband fell into Officer Meeks’ ‘plain view,’ it was subject to seizure and properly admissible in evidence. Brown v. State, supra (1959), 239 Ind. 358 , 157 N.E.2d 174 ; Harris v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 234, 236 , 88 S.Ct. 992 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 .” May, supra, 173 Ind.App. at 484-486 , 364 at 173-174.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Best v. State