The US Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an officer's sense of touch during a patdown search can justify the seizure of "nonthreatening contraband." The Court starts its analysis by discussing Terry v. Ohio and then discusses the plain-view doctrine. The Court described the plain-view doctrine as follows: The US Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an officer's sense of touch during a patdown search can justify the seizure of "nonthreatening contraband." The Court starts its analysis by discussing Terry v. Ohio and then discusses the plain-view doctrine. The Court described the plain-view doctrine as follows: If contraband is is observed by a police officer from wherever they are, even if they are there unlawfully, there has been no invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus no "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. If contraband is left in open view and is observed by a police officer from a lawful vantage point, there has an invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus there has been a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. If contraband is left in open view and is observed by a police officer from a lawful vantage point, there has been no invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus no "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. None of the above