What is the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement?

The "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is well-established. United States v. Andino , 768 F.3d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 2014). Under the plain view doctrine, a law enforcement officer may seize evidence without

[854 F.3d 180]

a warrant if (1) the officer is "lawfully in a position from which [the officer] view[s] an object," (2) the object's "incriminating character is immediately apparent," and (3) the officer has "a lawful right of access to the object." Minnesota v. Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366, 375, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). When an officer, during a justified intrusion, encounters incriminating evidence, "[t]he doctrine serves to supplement the prior justificationwhether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accusedand permits the warrantless seizure." Horton v. California , 496 U.S. 128, 135-36, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990).