Texas v. Brown

What This Case Is About

Texas v. Brown is a landmark Supreme Court decision clarifying the plain view doctrine under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that when an officer is lawfully positioned to observe an object, the “immediately apparent” requirement of the plain view doctrine requires only probable cause—not certainty—to believe the item is contraband or evidence of a crime. A person “of reasonable caution” need only believe the item is associated with criminal activity.

The Facts

During a routine driver’s license checkpoint at night, Fort Worth police officer Maples stopped Brown’s vehicle. When Brown began to reach for his driver’s license, Maples shined his flashlight into the car and observed Brown withdraw his hand from his right pants pocket and let a green party balloon, knotted near the tip, fall to the seat beside his leg. Maples was aware that narcotics were frequently packaged in such balloons. He also observed small plastic vials, loose white powder, and an open bag of party balloons in the car.

Maples reached into the car and retrieved the balloon from the seat. It was later determined to contain heroin. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals suppressed the evidence, holding that the plain view doctrine required the officer to know immediately and with certainty that the item seized was contraband.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain view doctrine does not require certainty. The Court established that the “immediately apparent” requirement means only that the officer must have probable cause to associate the object with criminal activity—the same standard of “reasonable cause to believe” that applies in other probable cause contexts.

The Court explained that probable cause is a “flexible, common-sense standard” that “merely requires that the facts available to the officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime.” The officer need not know the item is contraband—a reasonable belief is sufficient.

Applying this standard, the Court found that Officer Maples had probable cause to believe the balloon contained narcotics: he knew such balloons were commonly used to package drugs, he saw the balloon knotted in a way consistent with drug packaging, and he observed other drug paraphernalia in the car.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Plain view seizures require only probable cause. If officers seize evidence or property under the plain view doctrine during an encounter with you, the “immediately apparent” requirement does not mean the officers must be certain the item is evidence of a crime. They need only have probable cause—a reasonable belief.

The doctrine has three requirements. For a plain view seizure to be lawful: (1) the officer must be lawfully present in a position to view the object; (2) the incriminating character of the object must be “immediately apparent” (probable cause); and (3) the officer must have lawful access to the object.

Challenging plain view seizures in § 1983. If you believe officers unlawfully seized your property under the plain view doctrine, focus on whether: the officer was lawfully positioned, probable cause existed to believe the item was evidence of a crime, and the officer had lawful access. If any element is missing, the seizure was unconstitutional.

Officer training and experience count. An officer’s training and experience—such as knowledge that certain packaging is commonly associated with drugs—can support the probable cause determination for plain view seizures.

Key Takeaway

The plain view doctrine allows officers to seize items without a warrant when they are lawfully present and have probable cause to believe the items are evidence of a crime. Probable cause is a practical, common-sense standard—not a requirement of certainty. If a reasonable person with the officer’s training and experience would believe the item is associated with criminal activity, the seizure is lawful. This relatively low standard makes plain view seizures difficult to challenge in § 1983 cases unless the officer clearly lacked any reasonable basis to believe the item was evidence.