PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE ALLOWS POLICE TO SEIZE AN INSTRUMENT OF A CRIME IF IT IS IN PLAIN VIEW AS THEY SEARCH PREMISES FOR OTHER ITEMS OR MAKE ARRESTS. IN THE MURDER CASE, COOLIDGE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE (1971) THE DOCTRINE DID NOT JUSTIFY SEIZING AND SEARCHING THE MURDERER'S CAR UPON HIS ARREST, WHEN SEARCH WARRANTS WERE INVALIDATED. THREE LIMITATIONS WERE PLACED AS A RESULT OF THIS CASE: (1) LAWFUL INTRUSION MUST BRING THE OFFICER IN PLAIN VIEW OF THE ITEM SEIZED; (2) DISCOVERY MUST BE INADVERTENT; (3) THE OBJECT'S RELEVANCE TO CRIME MUST BE OBVIOUS. IN COOLIDGE, PLAIN VIEW WAS STRUCK DOWN AS THE MURDERER'S CAR WAS NOT INADVERTENTLY DISCOVERED, BUT SOUGHT AT THE TIME OF ARREST. PLAIN VIEW SEIZURES CANNOT BE MADE AS A RESULT OF A SEARCH OF THE ENTIRE PREMISES IN AN ARREST, WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT, NOR DOES IT EXPAND THE AREA ALLOWED IN A SEARCH WARRANT; SEIZURES OF ITEMS IN 'PROTECTIVE SWEEPS', OR LIMITED SEARCHES DONE OF PREMISES TO PROTECT POLICE, MUST BE MADE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS OF THE SWEEP. POLICE MAY SEARCH AND MAKE SEIZURES IN ANY PREMISE INTO WHICH THEY PURSUE A CRIMINAL, OR THROUGH ANY SEARCH OR ENTRY NOT REQUIRING A WARRANT, SUCH AS CARETAKING OR EMERGENCY SEARCHES, OR ENTRIES AT THE OCCUPANT'S INVITATION. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (PAP)