Under immunity, evidence discovered as a result of a warrantless search pursuant to a complaint filed in this article is admissible in court if it is found in plain view or is evidence of a violation of this article.

Under immunity, evidence discovered as a result of a warrantless search pursuant to a complaint filed in this article is admissible in court if it is found in plain view or is evidence of a violation of this article.

• A. It is found in plain view or is evidence of a violation of this article.
• B. It is found in plain view or is evidence of a violation of this article if the search after arrest was conducted.
• C. It must be obtained with a warrant.
• D. It is never admissible.

Answer: (A)

This question tests how evidence can be admitted when a warrant isn’t required because of the specific immunity provision. The key idea is that if evidence is discovered during a warrantless search conducted under this article, it can be admitted in two situations: first, if it is found in plain view, and second, if it is evidence of a violation of this article. The plain view rule means the officer must be lawfully present and the incriminating nature of the item must be immediately apparent; no warrant is needed to seize such items. Separately, if the evidence itself demonstrates a violation of the article, it’s admissible because it directly proves the violation, regardless of how it was found. The option that adds a condition about a search after arrest isn’t part of this provision, and saying it’s never admissible contradicts the plain view and violation-evidence allowances. In short, admissibility rests on being in plain view or proving a violation of the article, without requiring a warrant.

This question tests how evidence can be admitted when a warrant isn’t required because of the specific immunity provision. The key idea is that if evidence is discovered during a warrantless search conducted under this article, it can be admitted in two situations: first, if it is found in plain view, and second, if it is evidence of a violation of this article. The plain view rule means the officer must be lawfully present and the incriminating nature of the item must be immediately apparent; no warrant is needed to seize such items. Separately, if the evidence itself demonstrates a violation of the article, it’s admissible because it directly proves the violation, regardless of how it was found. The option that adds a condition about a search after arrest isn’t part of this provision, and saying it’s never admissible contradicts the plain view and violation-evidence allowances. In short, admissibility rests on being in plain view or proving a violation of the article, without requiring a warrant.