What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.

"[The] use of a searchlight is comparable to the use of a marine glass or a field glass. It is not prohibited by the Constitution."

"It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.

"But no search on the high seas is shown. The testimony of the boatswain shows that he used a searchlight. It is not shown that there was any exploration below decks or under hatches. For aught that appears, the cases of liquor were on deck and, like the defendants, were discovered before the motor boat was boarded. Such use of a searchlight is comparable to

On the other hand, even a property interest in premises may not be sufficient to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to particular items located on the premises or activity conducted thereon.

The Supreme Court has long held that evidence may be lawfully seized if it falls in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to make the observation

Moreover, "the use of artificial means to illuminate a darkened area simply does not constitute a search, and thus triggers no Fourth Amendment protection."

In an opinion by Justice Brandeis, the Court held the use of a searchlight to search the boat did not constitute a search for constitutional purposes.

In addition to these reasons justifying the seizure of the wallet from appellant's vehicle, the rule is well established that the search of a motor vehicle, unlike a home, may be made without a warrant or previous arrest when the officer has probable cause in the constitutional context to believe that the vehicle contains that which is subject to seizure, including the fruits or …