Analysis and Application: Police Encounters with Suspects and Evidence

The plain view doctrine is an exception to the search warrant requirements that allows police officers to seize evidence, without a search warrant, that they recognize as contraband or used in a criminal activity that is seen in plain view without having to enter the property or perform a search. In addition, a corollary to the plain sight doctrine is the plain smell doctrine, that allows if an officer smells evidence (e.g. marijuana), the officer meets the probable cause requirement to initiate a warrantless search (Lemons, n.d.). For example, an officer pulls over to assist a stranded motorist and observes in the front console of the vehicle a large bag of pills. This meets the probable cause requirement for the officer to perform a search of the vehicle.

The following exceptions do not require probable cause: stop and frisk, incident to arrest, consent, inventory and administrative searches. The most common exception patrol officers encounter in the field is the stop and frisk also commonly known as

seized illegally and the exclusionary rule applied. As such the items seized may not be presented

IV. Issue: Can a police officer that orders a driver out of a car frisk the person if reasonable suspicion exists that he may be armed?

In the first incident, Clayton Harris’s truck was pulled over by Officer Wheetley because it had an expired license plate. When Wheetley approached the vehicle the suspect

Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, that evidence is at the place being sear5ched or on the person being searched, or that a specific person is believed to have committed, is committing, or will commit a certain crime. Law enforcement cannot just go to a judge and say they have probable cause for a warrant. To obtain a warrant law enforcement needs something to substantiate their belief. The standard for probable cause to be met is for any reasonable person to believe based on the evidence or observations presented that indeed either a suspect has or is engaging in criminal activity, or that evidence exists at a certain location. Not all searches require probable cause to be established. The exception to the probable cause is reasonable suspicion. An example of this is a customs search. A custom search requires no warrant or probable cause be presented. But if a custom agent is going to detain a traveler for an extended

For a search and seizure to be done the officer has to obtain a warrant, also known as probable cause. By doing this the Fourth Amendment is begin followed, which reads, “The right of people to secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supports by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or thing to be seized” (Constitution.org/2009). An individual also has the right to protect their belongings against unwarranted searches by police officers. Obtaining a warrant is very important because any evidence that is illegally seized by a police officer cannot to be used in court. This is called the exclusionary rule. It was established in 1914 (Criminal Justice today/2009.Ch7). The plain view doctrine occurs when the evidence is simply in plain view. In this case no warrant is needed. In other words, anything that the officer happens to see at the crime scene can be used as evidence. Another time when a warrant is not necessary is when there is an emergency or when the officer has reasons to believe someone in the home is hurt. These situations are referred to as emergency searches.

The issue lies within the interpretation of what constituents reasonable grounds, as it is a subjective suspicion that can be interpreted differently by individual police officers and forces (Bowling and Phillips, 2007).

Reasonable Suspicion: is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

Officer had probable cause to affect a traffic stop after he observed defendant following too closely. Defendant's and passenger's behavior after stop provided reasonable suspicion to expand the detention, and a positive drug dog sniff provided basis for search of vehicle.

[A] Absolutely, the reasonable suspicion of Deputy Sanderson was sufficient enough to expand a lawful traffic stop regarding the burnout headlight of the defendant’s vehicle. When Deputy Sanderson approached the Petitioner Mr. Haverford, it was completely a different story. By observing the defendant himself, Deputy Sanderson suspected that the defendant was under the influence of some kind of drugs. The reason why is because the defendant was extremely nervous. It is understandable to be nervous when to pull over by an officer but in this case it was not. The way the hands of the defendant were shaking is one clue. Plus the defendant upper body was shaking abnormally, clue number two. And finally, Deputy Sanderson took a good look at the defendant eyes and he realized the eyes were restricted [page 4], clue number three.

Reasonable suspicion occurs when an equitable law enforcement officer possessing a belief or intuition of the possibility of a crime being committed, stops an alleged suspect, conducts a brief investigation and “pats” them down if it is believed the detainee possess a weapon. Reasonable suspicion became relevant in 1968, during the paramount case of Terry v. Ohio. An officer observed several people, Terry included, behaving in a suspicious manner in front of a store giving the officer reasonable suspicion to confront the suspects and conduct a brief pat down, whereas it was found that Terry had in his possession a firearm. This made the officer’s reasonable suspicion plausible, ruled by the Supreme Court, (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Thus, this lead reasonable suspicion to probable cause to the arrest of Terry and his fellow accomplices.

The trial judge concluded that MacDonald’s possession of the gun was unauthorized and that, “the officer’s pushing the door open further did not breach M’s s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search” (pg 38). The officer pushing the door

D was driving his car and responded to a police officer's signal to stop. D slowed down but then accelerated towards the PC. The PC moved out of the way, D drove off. D was charged with attempt to cause bodily harm by wanton driving at a police constable.