THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COOLIDGE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE CASE. IT FOCUSES ON TWO REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID PLAIN VIEW SEIZURE: (1) THE DISCOVERY OF THE ITEM MUST BE 'INADVERTANT'; AND (2) THE ITEM TO BE SEIZED MUST BE 'IMMEDIATELY APPARENT' AS CONTRABAND OR EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. THE CONTROVERSY OFTEN SURROUNDS INADVERTANCE AS A CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED ELEMENT OF THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE. BOTH THE BROAD AND NARROW INTERPRETATIONS OF 'INADVERTANCE' ARE ILLUSTRATED WITH EXAMPLES. THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN UNITED STATES V. HARE REFLECTS THE APPROACH OF MOST CASES. THIS RULE UPHOLDS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PRINCIPLE THAT, WHENEVER PRACTICABLE, A SEARCH WARRANT MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO A SEARCH OR SEIZURE, BUT THAT OFFICERS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR SEIZURES OF CONTRABAND IN PLAIN VIEW SITUATIONS WHEREIN THE OFFICERS HAD INSUFFICIENT FACTS PRIOR TO THE SEIZURE TO APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN A WARRANT. THE SECOND REQUIREMENT, THAT AN ITEM BE 'IMMEDIATELY APPARENT,' IS COMPLICATED BY QUESTIONS ON THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY WITH WHICH THE ITEMS IN PLAIN VIEW MUST BE APPARENT AS EVIDENCE. THE STANDARD ADOPTED HAS BEEN THE 'PROBABLE CAUSE' TO BELIEVE THAT AN ITEM IS CONTRABAND OR OTHERWISE INCRIMINATING. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (RFC)