Which situation would be constitutionally valid under the Plain View Doctrine?

The situation that aligns with the Plain View Doctrine involves an officer entering a home based on a complaint and subsequently observing narcotics on the table. The Plain View Doctrine permits law enforcement to seize evidence without a warrant if it is immediately apparent that the evidence is related to criminal activity and the officer is lawfully present in the location where the evidence is observed.

In this scenario, the officer's presence in the home is justified due to the initial complaint, which provides a legal basis for entering the property. Upon entry, if the narcotics are visible and the officer has probable cause to believe that they are linked to criminal activity, the seizure of that evidence is constitutional under this doctrine.

The other options involve situations that do not meet all the necessary criteria outlined by the Plain View Doctrine. For example, simply seeing someone run into a building associated with drug activity does not provide the direct observation of evidence necessary for a valid seizure. Obtaining consent to search a property or conducting a search based on the presence of drugs observed within the vehicle also falls outside the scope of the Plain View Doctrine, as neither of these situations involves the unplanned observation or immediate recognition of contraband or illegal activity from a lawful vantage point.