The Plain View Doctrine allows seizure of contraband when the item is in plain view and the officer had lawful access to the location.

• A. It applies only to seized items at the scene
• B. It requires the item to be in plain view and the officer to have lawful access
• C. It requires a warrant to view items
• D. It requires the officer to have probable cause

Answer: (B)

The key idea being tested is that the Plain View Doctrine lets officers seize contraband without a warrant when they are lawfully present in a location and they observe the item in plain view, with its incriminating nature readily apparent. The officer’s lawful presence is crucial—if the officer isn’t legally allowed in the place, the plain view seizure doesn’t apply. Once those conditions are met, the incriminating character is obvious without needing to search or move objects, so a warrant isn’t required for that observation.

This fits the correct choice because it captures both requirements: the item must be in plain view and the officer must have lawful access. The other statements miss important points: viewing without a warrant is permitted under plain view, so requiring a warrant is incorrect; needing probable cause isn’t the precise standard for the observation itself (immediate apparentness of incriminating character matters); and the doctrine isn’t restricted to items seized at a particular “scene”—it applies wherever the officer is lawfully present and the item is plainly seen.