THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT IN PATRICK V. COMMONWEALTH (1976) HELD THAT THE COMMONWEALTH COULD NOT INVOKE THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE TO JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE FOUND UNDER A CAR SEAT DURING A WARRANTLESS AUTOMOBILE SEARCH. A PLURALITY OF THE COURT FOUND THAT THE POLICE MUST HAVE A PRIOR JUSTIFICATION FOR AN INTRUSION WHICH LEADS TO THE INADVERTENT DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PATRICK CASE, THE POLICE HAD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SEARCH OF THE CAR, AND THE EVIDENCE FOUND WAS INADMISSIBLE. THE COURT, HOWEVER, HAS NOT DECIDED THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHEN IT WILL BE APPARENT TO THE POLICE THAT THEY DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SEIZURES WITHOUT A WARRANT. THE COURT APPEARS TO BE ESTABLISHING A JUSTIFICATION FOR A WARRANTLESS SEARCH BASED ON AN OFFICER'S REASONABLE BELIEF THAT A SUSPECT IS ARMED, OR BASED UPON THE CONSENT OF THIRD PARTIES. THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT HAS APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF HARMLESS ERROR IN THE REJECTION OF AN APPEAL BASED ON LACK OF EFFECTIVE COUNSEL. THE COURT RULED THAT DESPITE HAVING LESS THAN TWO DAYS TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE, THE APPELLENT HAD A FAIR TRIAL, AND HAD NOT PROVEN OTHERWISE. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT ALL SIMILAR CRIMES AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM BY THE DEFENDANT COULD BE USED AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH ONLY ONE CONVICTION COULD BE SOUGHT FOR THE SERIES OF CRIMES. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)