State v. Zacher, 868 N.W.2d 847

Officer stopped Zacher for failing to stop at a stop sign, discovered Zacher’s license was suspended, arrested him, and placed him in the patrol vehicle.
Zacher consented to the officer entering his car to move it from the parking lot to avoid towing.
While moving the car, the officer saw about half an inch of a small plastic bag’s top wedged between the driver’s seat and center console; he could not see the bag’s contents from his initial vantage point.
The officer removed the bag, observed “very small pieces of paper,” and later (after a field test) determined the pieces contained LSD; Zacher eventually admitted possession.
Zacher moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the seizure of the bag required a warrant because its incriminating nature was not immediately apparent; the district court denied suppression under the plain view doctrine.
Zacher conditionally pled guilty to possession, preserving his right to appeal; the Supreme Court reversed the denial of suppression and remanded to allow withdrawal of the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plain view exception justified seizure of the plastic bag	The bag’s appearance (type of bag used for drugs) and officer’s training provided probable cause to seize it without a warrant	The officer could not see the contents from a lawful vantage point; the incriminating character was not immediately apparent and removal/inspection was a search requiring a warrant	Reversed: plain view did not apply because the incriminating nature was not immediately apparent; removing and inspecting the bag was a warrantless seizure/search violating the Fourth Amendment

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (describes the plain view exception and its requirements)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (discusses limits on seizure based on plain feel/view)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (addresses level of certainty required for plain view seizures)
State v. Nickel, 836 N.W.2d 405 (N.D. 2013) (North Dakota articulation of plain view prerequisites)
State v. Wamre, 599 N.W.2d 268 (N.D. 1999) (distinguishes lawful vantage points and limits on searches beyond original justification)
State v. Albaugh, 732 N.W.2d 712 (N.D. 2007) (explains that incriminating character must be immediately apparent)