Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Part II: Warrantless Searches and Seizures (Incidental to a Lawful Arrest & Seizure of Evidence in Plain View)

Continuing our discussion on the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, let’s now talk about warrantless searches. This is a bar-friendly (is friendly the right word?>.<) topic, so we’ll SOLELY focus on warrantless searches in this post.

As previously discussed, because the right of privacy and a right of a person to be secure in his own home is so sacred, there needs to be a valid search warrant before the government can invade his/her constitutionally-protected area (one where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy: body, house, papers, effects, hotel room, office, luggage).

However, there are instances wherein searches are reasonable even in the absence of a search warrant, taking into account the “uniqueness of circumstances involved including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.”
–People v. Sapla, 2020

We don’t need to memorize the above-mentioned passage for purposes of the bar. It’s there so that we can better understand the reason for warrantless searches and seizures.

These are the SEVEN (7) known jurisprudential instances of valid or reasonable warrantless searches and seizures:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
2. Seizure of evidence in plain view
3. Search of a moving vehicle
4. Consented warrantless search
5. Customs search
6. Stop and frisk
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances

Whew, that’s a lot. Anyway, we’ll need to discuss these one by one.

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
(WARNING: VERY LONG DISCUSSION because it already includes warrantless arrests)

Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.

Before we can discuss a warrantless search, let’s first get into what a lawful arrest is. The first kind of lawful arrest is one done with a warrant. Our previous discussion already covered that. What’s missing is the second kind of lawful arrest, the lawful warrantless arrest.

We’ll steal this discussion from Manibog v. People (2019):

[For an arrest to be lawful, a warrant of arrest must have been judicially issued or there was a lawful warrantless arrest as provided for in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court:

SECTION 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

For valid warrantless arrests under Section 5(a) and (b), the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of the offense. The difference is that under Section 5(a), the arresting officer must have personally witnessed the crime; meanwhile, under Section 5(b), the arresting officer must have had probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested committed an offense. Nonetheless, whether under Section 5(a) or (b), the lawful arrest generally precedes, or is substantially contemporaneous, with the search.]

We have to memorize these 3 instances of a valid warrantless arrest for us to apply a valid warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. A long line of cases tells us that THE ARREST MUST PRECEDE THE SEARCH (or is substantially contemporaneous, with the search). This process cannot be reversed. Also, we have to take note that a private person may conduct a warrantless arrest.

The first one, Section 5(a), refers to an in flagrante delicto arrest which requires two elements:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
–People v. Chua, 2003

The second one, Section 5(b), refers to a hot pursuit arrest.:
[The rule requires that an offense has just been committed. It connotes “immediacy in point of time.” That a crime was in fact committed does not automatically bring the case under this rule. An arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court entails a time element from the moment the crime is committed up to the point of arrest.

Law enforcers need not personally witness the commission of a crime. However, they must have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating that the person sought to be arrested committed it.]
–Veridiano v. People, 2017, penned by Justice Leonen

The hot pursuit arrest requires probable cause. If you can still remember the definition of probable cause for arrests, you can see how it fits in the second paragraph of the passage above:
“such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.”
–Agcaoili v. Molina, 1995

Let’s ignore the third one, Rule 113 Sec. 5(c), because it’s pretty clear cut that arresting officers can apprehend an escapee.

Moving on, the obvious difference between in flagrante delicto and hot pursuit arrest is that the former requires that the arresting officer personally witnessed the crime.

A tricky part in a hot pursuit arrest is how to determine the “immediacy in point of time” or that “a crime has just been committed.” In other words, what is the maximum length of time allowed for it to still be considered a hot pursuit arrest, therefore, having no need to acquire a warrant of arrest?

There really is no rule as to the exact time allowable. The longest possible time allowed is on the same day as in People v. Tonog, Jr (1992).

I think one bonus element to include in our answers is to know whether there was enough time to secure a search warrant without risking the escape of the suspects. To illustrate, let’s continue the discussion in Veridiano v. People (2017, penned by Justice Leonen):

[People v. Gerente illustrates a valid arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court. In Gerente, the accused was convicted for murder and for violation of Republic Act No. 6425. He assailed the admissibility of dried marijuana leaves as evidence on the ground that they were allegedly seized from him pursuant to a warrantless arrest. On appeal, the accused’s conviction was affirmed. This Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was justified under Rule 113, Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court. The police officers had personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating that the accused killed the victim:
The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions did. (Emphasis supplied)]

Note the underlined sentences. They will give us an idea of the time element required in a hot pursuit arrest. It is not often discussed in jurisprudence, but I think it helps to add it in our answers.

Another tricky part in a hot pursuit arrest is how can we determine that there is probable cause? The answer really depends on each case because:
[“it is a pragmatic question to be determined in each case in light of the particular circumstances and the particular offense involved.”]
–Pestilos v. Generoso, 2014 (A gold mine for hot pursuit arrests)

It should also be noted that the probable cause here should be held to lesser standards as the probable cause required in the issuance of a warrant of arrest:
[Hence, in Santos, the Court acknowledged the inherent limitations of determining probable cause in warrantless arrests due to the urgency of its determination in these instances. The Court held that one should not expect too much of an ordinary policeman. He is not presumed to exercise the subtle reasoning of a judicial officer. Oftentimes, he has no opportunity to make proper investigation but must act in haste on his own belief to prevent the escape of the criminal.]
–Pestilos v. Generoso, 2014

The above passage would not be useful as a bar “bullet,” but only for purposes of understanding. Anyway….

A fool-proof way in answering questions regarding hot pursuit arrest, I think, after answering the question categorically (yes or no) is to first cite the two elements of a hot pursuit arrest:
A hot pursuit arrest under Rule 113 Section 5(b) of the Rules of Court has two elements:
1. an offense has just been committed
2. the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
then, we apply this to the facts of the case. For example:
Here, the crime was committed 6 days ago, clearly violating the first element of a hot pursuit arrest that a crime has just been committed. Further, the arresting officers merely relied on a tip from an informant, violating the second element that the arresting officers must base their assessment of probable cause on their personal knowledge.
Then we make a conclusion based on the categorical question.

And if we answer that the arrest was a hot pursuit arrest, I think it helps to add the element of urgency if applicable:
If the arresting officers had postponed the suspect’s arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have already fled the law.


But of course, there are a variety of ways that the question can present issues. Maybe the issue is on the “immediacy of time,” the “personal knowledge,” the “probable cause,” or a combination of some or all.

Luckily, Pestilos v. Generoso offers a framework to deal with this:
We simply answer the following questions:
1) An offense has just been committed (immediacy in point of time): has the crime just been committed when they were arrested?
2) Personal knowledge: did the arresting officer have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the petitioners committed the crime? or did he just depend on an informant?
3) Probable Cause: based on these facts and circumstances that the arresting officer possessed at the time of the petitioners’ arrest, would a reasonably discreet and prudent person believe that the crime was committed by the person sought to be arrested?

It also helps to look at jurisprudence to see what instances in the past has been accepted or rejected by the Supreme Court as a hot pursuit arrest:

1. Rejected (no immediacy, no personal knowledge)- The arrest happened 3 days after the crime. The arresting officers based their probable cause on 2 witnesses who identified the suspect.
–Posadas v. Ombudsman, 2000

2. Rejected (no personal knowledge, no probable cause) – Information was reported to the police from a person who stated that he was recruited by Burgos to join the NPA. The next day, the police arrested Burgos. “In this case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok’s verbal report. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained.”
–People v. Burgos, 1986

3. Rejected (no immediacy, no personal knowledge)- “the arrest of del Rosario did not comply with these requirements because he was arrested only a day after the commission of the crime and not immediately thereafter. Additionally, the arresting officers were not present and were not actual eyewitnesses to the crime. Hence, they had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed the offense. They became aware of del Rosario’s identity as the driver of the getaway tricycle only during the custodial investigation.”
–People v. del Rosario, 1999

4. Accepted- Information of a dead body arrived at 6:00 am. The arresting officer investigated the crime scene immediately. He learned from his investigation that a “motorcab” with side car number 0164 had stopped near the place where the deceased was found. His investigation likewise revealed that “the person responsible for the death of Efren Flores was a certain Abdul Tonog of Bacong, Negros Oriental” . Pat. Leguarda based his conclusion principally from the information given to him by one Liberato Solamillo . He was also informed by the girlfriend of Abdul Tonog’s co-accused, Allan Solamillo, that prior to the stabbing incident, “there were grudges between Efren Flores and Abdul Tonog.” He also found blood stains on the suspect’s pants. The key here is that the officer personally investigated and he did it on the same day the crime was committed.
–People v. Tonog, Jr., 1992

5. Accepted- After seeing the victim dead in the hospital, the arresting officers inspected the crime scene. They saw the murder weapons and heard the testimony of an eyewitness who identified the suspect. They arrested the suspect 3 hours after the crime was committed. They won’t have enough time to secure a warrant before the suspects can escape from the law
–People v. Gerente, 1993

6. Accepted- A maid was kept as a “rape slave.” She finally mustered the courage to call her sister who then asked the help of the police. The police immediately went to the house where the maid was held captive. The victim-maid pointed at the suspect as the one who rapes her. “The personal knowledge of the arresting officers in the case at bar was culled from the information supplied by the victim herself who pointed to Alvario as the man who raped her at the time of his arrest.”
–People v. Alvario, 1997

7. Accepted- “a group held up the passengers in a jeepney and the policemen immediately responded to the report of the crime. One of the victims saw four persons walking towards Fort Bonifacio, one of whom was wearing his jacket. The victim pointed them to the policemen. When the group saw the policemen coming, they ran in different directions. The Court held that the arrest was valid.”
–People v. Acol, 1994

8. Accepted- “there was an initial report to the police concerning a robbery. A radio dispatch was then given to the arresting officers, who proceeded to Alden Street to verify the authenticity of the radio message. When they reached the place, they met with the complainants who initiated the report about the robbery. Upon the officers’ invitation, the victims joined them in conducting a search of the nearby area where the accused was spotted in the vicinity. Based on the reported statements of the complainants, he was identified as a logical suspect in the offense just committed. Hence, the arrest was held valid.”
–Cadua v. CA, 1999

9. Accepted- “the arresting officers went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of Atty. Generoso of his alleged mauling; the police officers responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour after the alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a community where Atty. Generoso and the petitioners reside; Atty. Generoso positively identified the petitioners as those responsible for his mauling and, notably, the petitioners and Atty. Generoso lived almost in the same neighborhood; more importantly, when the petitioners were confronted by the arresting officers, they did not deny their participation in the incident with Atty. Generoso, although they narrated a different version of what transpired.”
–Pestilos v. Generoso 2014

So I guess it’s safe to say that the trend here for a hot pursuit arrest to be valid is: personal investigation, victim identifying the suspect, and immediacy of action. Of course, we can’t really set these as rules since every case is different. Let’s just always stick to the elements and the structure of how to answer questions above and use these example cases as a guide.

WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST

Now that we’re clear on the warrantless arrest here (lol we already discussed warrantless arrest before warrantless search. Oh well) and the arrest with a warrant in our previous discussion, let’s move on to why we’re really here: the warrantless search.

Now, that the officer has validly arrested the suspect, how can he validly search him?

Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.

So what the officer will look for are dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense.

Important elements of a warrantless search:
1. Contemporaneous to the arrest (but with the arrest generally happening before the search)
2. Made within a permissible area of search

Where can the officer search?

A search as an incident to a lawful arrest is allowed provided that the search is made contemporaneous to the arrest and within a permissible area of search.
–Cruz v. People, 2009

The permissible area of search is the suspect’s person and the area under his immediate control:
[In fact, the warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surrounding under his immediate control.]
–People v. Hindoy, 2001

The area of a suspect’s immediate control is generally thought to be within arm’s length. There are two reasons for this:
1. to protect the arresting officer against physical harm from the person being arrested who might have a concealed weapon
2. to prevent the person arrested from destroying evidence within his reach.

“The exception (warrantless search) therefore should not be strained beyond what is needed in order to serve its purposes.”
–People v. Che Chun Ting, 2000

For example, if someone was arrested in the streets for obviously selling drugs, the police officers can arrest him and search his person for concealed weapons and drugs, but he cannot search his house for more drugs. Why? because the house is not under his immediate control. Plus, there is no threat that the arrested person can go to his house and destroy the evidence. What the officer can now do is to acquire a search warrant to search the suspect’s house.

However, it is another story if the suspect ran, and the officer chased him until he reached his house. He was then arrested while inside his house. Now, the officer can search the house because it is within the suspect’s immediate control. In the case of People v. Gueno (1998), even if the suspect was arrested standing by the door of the store which was part of the house, the house can still be searched.

In also another related story, the case of People v. Che Chun Ting (2000) illustrates a suspect that was arrested for drugs outside the apartment of his girlfriend where he merely sojourns/temporarily stays. The Supreme Court said that the inner portion of the apartment is NOT a permissible area within his reach or immediate control. Thus, the act of searching the apartment and seizing the drugs therein is invalid.

So I guess it’s safe to say that the place has to be your house for you to have immediate control of its premises and surroundings.

I think I should insert this here. In case the crime is Article 201 of the RPC (confiscation of pornographic/obscene materials), it is ALWAYS SUBJECT TO A SEARCH WARRANT.

Why? BECAUSE ONLY THE JUDGE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER THE ITEMS TO BE CONFISCATED ARE OBSCENE. This is the procedure:
[1. The authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order;

2. The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are “obscene”, and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action;

3. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed “obscene:” the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on His Honor’s sound discretion.

4. If, in the opinion of the court, probable cause exists, it may issue the search warrant prayed for;

5. The proper suit is then brought in the court under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code.]
–Pita v. CA (1989)

So that’s it. TO RECAP:
Basis of warrantless search: Rule 126 Sec. 13
Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.

Important elements of a warrantless search:
1. Contemporaneous to the arrest (but with the arrest generally happening before the search)
2. Made within a permissible area of search (suspect’s person and the area under his immediate control)

What can the arresting officer look for:
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense.- Rule 126 Sec. 13

Master the three valid warrantless arrests under Rule 113 Sec. 5, focusing on the elements of the first two:

Rule 113 Sec. 5(a)
Elements of in flagrant delicto arrest
1. the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
2. such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

Rule 113 Sec. 5(b)
Elements of a “hot pursuit” arrest
1. An offense has just been committed
2. the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
Bonus element (for me):
Urgency- Postponement of the arrest until the officer can obtain a warrant would result in the suspects escaping the law

In case the crime is Article 201 of the RPC (confiscation of pornographic/obscene materials), it is ALWAYS SUBJECT TO A SEARCH WARRANT because only the judge can determine if the items are indeed obscene/pornographic.

Let’s move on to the “plain view” doctrine.

2. Seizure of evidence in plain view

The plain view doctrine basically makes it allowable for an officer to seize evidence that he found accidentally. The usual phrase of explanation from jurisprudence is:

The “plain view” doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. 
–Coolidge v. New Hampshire, US Case, 1971

For its requisites, we’ll steal an excerpt from the recent People v. Cu (2020) penned by CJ Peralta:
[Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer, who has a right to be in a position to have that view, may be validly seized by such officer without a warrant and, thus, may be introduced in evidence.[46] An object is deemed in plain view when it is “open to eye and hand”[47] or is “plainly exposed to sight.”[48]

In Miclat, Jr. v. People,[49] we identified the three (3) requisites that must concur in order to validly invoke the doctrine, to wit:
The “plain view” doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.]

We should note the three requisites above. When it comes to elements, there are four:
[Seizure of evidence in “plain view,” the elements of which are:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
(d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;]
–Manibog v. People, 2019 + A long line of cases

but I’ll go with the 3 requisites because:
(1) I don’t think the 4th element matters that much,
(2) I’d rather memorize 3 than 4,
(3) the first item is more complete as it is not limited to just an intrusion, and
(4) I trust CJ Peralta.

Anyway, for further understanding, we’ll relate the “plain view” doctrine with the reasonable expectation of privacy we discussed in the last post. Notice how the concept of a “search” in the Bill of Rights is an instance wherein a government agent violates a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, and that a search warrant is required for such. We can argue that the “plain view” doctrine refers not actually to a search because it is not an intrusion that violates our reasonable expectation of privacy. Why? Because the thing is just right there! You’re not trying to hide it, so why fault the officer? So if it’s not a search in the eyes of the Bill of Rights, it does not require a search warrant. It also probably explains why it’s called “Seizure of evidence in plain view” and not search of blahblah. This is just my take on the matter, so don’t cite me on this in any examination.

We’ll provide an example:
if you have shabu on your table inside your home and you have a big-ass window so that a patrolling officer can obviously see you from the outside, what is he supposed to do? Look away? Get a search/arrest warrant when there’s a chance you can hide everything when he comes back? The plain view doctrine is there so that situations like this can be remedied. It is also for situations where there is a valid intrusion (a valid search warrant or a lawful warrantless search) and the officer can plainly see other illegal items/evidence in your house that are either not described in the search warrant or are clearly/apparently evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

Here are instances of not in plain view based on jurisprudence:
1. Marijuana wrapped in newspaper (People v. Salanguit, 2001). It would be different that even if in an enclosed package, if an experienced observer can infer from its appearance that it contains prohibited articles, then the article is deemed in plain view. For example, a gun-shaped item wrapped in newspaper lol.
2. Marijuana plants in the backyard (even an unfenced one) which can’t be seen from outside (People v. Valdes, 2000). It would be different if there was a valid arrest prior to the search of the suspect’s lot (see: warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest above). In that scenario, the officers can inspect the house including the backyard because it within the suspect’s immediate control.
3. No search warrant, no valid intrusion (People v. Cu, 2020). [In the case at bench, it is undisputed that Mayor Pilapil and his team entered and conducted an ocular inspection on the mining site of BCMC and Prime Rock without any judicial warrant. As petitioners concede, Mayor Pilapil was moved to carry out such entry and inspection solely by reports which suggest that Prime Rock was engaging in mining activities, in violation of the CDO issued by the MGB RO5.[51] Upon reaching the mining site, however, Mayor Pilapil and his inspection team actually encountered no active mining operations.[52] What they were able to chance upon were the subject explosives which, at the time, were kept in bags and stored inside a room, albeit one whose door was ajar.[53]

The foregoing facts clearly establish that Mayor Pilapil and his inspection team were not in a lawful position when they discovered the subject explosives. The intrusion and inspection of the mining site of BCMC and Prime Rock, which afforded Mayor Pilapil and his team the opportunity to view the subject explosives, were illegal as they were not sanctioned by a warrant. Moreover, there is nothing in the facts which indicate that such entry and inspection fall within any of the recognized instances of valid warrantless searches.]

Plain Smell Doctrine?

So what about the smell? Is there a plain smell doctrine? (lol) In the US, I think there is. But, in our jurisdiction, the smell of marijuana usually is concerned with the search of a moving vehicle and is a part of the probable cause that is needed to conduct a search. The case of Macad v. People (2018) is a goldmine for cases related to this.

Then what about a Canine Sniff Test? This question appeared in the 2014 but in Remedial law. The U.S. ruled that a canine sniff test is not a “search” because it is sui generis and merely reveals the presence of drugs, but the “seizure” after it is valid. However, we actually have no jurisprudence that conclusively rules if a canine sniff test is a valid warrantless search so we can argue in any direction provided we present a solid base and logic.

Personally, I have no definite answer and I’m too tired to think about it. I’ll probably go with it being a valid Stop and Frisk search (click on the link for the discussion) IF there is an additional suspicious circumstance (like the suspect acting suspiciously, or has a gun-shaped object tucked in his waist) aside from the canine sniff test because:
“…to sustain the validity of a stop and frisk search, the arresting officer should have personally observed two (2) or more suspicious circumstances, the totality of which would then create a reasonable inference of criminal activity to compel the arresting officer to investigate further.“
– Manibog v. People, 2019, citing Justice Bersamin’s dissenting opinion in Esquillo v. People, 2010 (This principle was repeated again in Telen v. People, 2019)

Seizure of Unlicensed Firearms

I think it’s best to add in here that FIREARMS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO SEIZURE WITHOUT A WARRANT. Why? Because they are not patently illegal and how can it be IMMEDIATELY APPARENT to the officers that the firearms is unlicensed?:
[It does not follow that because an offense is malum prohibitum, the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita, but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A warrant is still necessary, because possession of any firearm becomes unlawful only if the required permit or license therefor is not first obtained.]
–Veroy v. Layague, 1992

Thus, even in plain view, firearms cannot be seized without a warrant.

TO RECAP, here are the 3 requisites:
1. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area
2. The discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent
3. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure

Our answers will revolve around these requisites, and our analysis will be guided with the discussions above.

On to the next warrantless search, search of a moving vehicle.

I think it’s better to end this post here. Else, it would be hard for me to navigate a very long post later on. Plus, it’s hard to put together the confusing topic of hot pursuit and search of a moving vehicle in just one post.