Plain View Doctrine: A Case Study

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

Law enforcement officers across the country have undergone extensive training and have been entrusted with powers to protect the public. They have every right to remain vigilant in conducting their job to ensure their safety as well as the publics. They are authorized to conduct specific types of searches with out a warrant and three types of searches are: plain view search, consent to search, and stop and frisk. We will look at each type of search closer and attempt to throughly describe each. A plain-view search is a tool an officer can utilize to legally confiscate or seize a specific item. This type of search requires the officer: to view the item while he or she is in the immediate area, recogize and realize the item can be seized,

In the examination of the case the courts utilized three important cases to justify the scope of the automobile exception rule. The case that was examined during the trial by the U.S. Supreme Court was Carroll v. United States (1925), United States v. Ross (1982), and California v. Acevedo (1991). Carroll was used because it was first to rule on automobile exception. The significances of the Carroll ruling was evidence could be obtained without search warrant even if a suspect hides any illegal objects or drugs in their vehicle (Carroll v. United States, 1925, p.267) the second case examined by the court was United States v. Ross (1982). The significant of this case was as long as law enforcement has follow the probable cause standards , an officer is allow to search any container located in automobile (Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999). However, the scope of the search had to meet the requirements if a regular warrant was issue. The third case of the automobile search of the exception rule is California v. Acevedo. In California v. Acevedo the courts pointed out the most important factor was in this case that supported Wyoming was if the officer has less probable cause could justify more any wide-ranging of searches of

Plain-view doctrine the rule permitting a police officer’s warrantless seizure and use as evidence of an item observed in plain view from a lawful position or during a legal search when the item is evidence of a crime.

This document doesn’t really have an exotic name to it. It was the name of the creator. The document that is being talked about is the Monroe Doctrine. The first name of this document happens to be from (at the time) President James Monroe. He is a man that was known for being very honest, and served two terms as president. For his famous document though, it was brought up in the Seventh annual meeting for congress. The main premise of the document was for a warning to European powers to not interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, which happens to contained the US in it. The thing about this document was that it didn’t just come out of the blue. This document was inspired by the ideas and thoughts that the Russians expressed to the world. In 1821, they said that the area that is north of the fifty first parallel and that extended for about one hundred miles into the Pacific was off limits to those that are not Russian. At the time though, the man that was in office for America was John Adams and he responded back to them by saying that no Europeans countries were allowed to conquer/ control land in the Americas. So because of this issue, years later President James Monroe wrote this document for countries like Russia to watch out for what land they ‘consider’ to be there’s. This document alone sent a message to these European countries that America isn’t afraid to start a war over what is there’s. This was one of the steps toward America being a powerhouse and

The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize evidence, without a warrant, evidence, and contraband that are found in the officers plain view during a lawful action.

This could include any proceeding related to the case except for the trial, such as grand jury proceedings or bail hearings. Second, the exception of cross-examination, which is when this evidence is used by the government to prove the suspect is guilty [1]. Third, the attenuation exception highlights using illegally obtained evidence only if it makes the government’s case weaker [2]. Fourth would be the use of an independent source: when the evidence will be admissible unless law enforcement breaks the law in order to discover the evidence [2]. This is also known as the good-faith exception, meaning the officer truly and honestly did not believe they were acting unlawfully. Lastly, inevitable discovery is used when law enforcement will eventually find the evidence under constitutional means

When an officer responds to a call at one’s house with their body camera recording and someone wanting to see that video, therein lies the question again on expectation of privacy for

The plain-view doctrine permits a cop or a government specialist to claim property on the premise of seize evidence found on display rather property excluded in a warrant. Also, amid a legal perception, if a cop discovered evidence and contraband in plain view then the plain view doctrine permits it to seize or claim property without a warrant. The plain view principle does not give the right of an officer to assault the security and flexibility right of citizens amid a legitimate perception or examination (Bacigal and Tate, 2014). The Federal Supreme Court has refined opportune the plain view regulation as depicted that the officer must have reasonable justification to accept generally full confirmation of a crime or illicit exercises before seize the thing. The three prerequisites are met to apply for revelations for the plain view

Let’s say the driver has a knife and put it in his sock thinking that the officer won’t be able to find anything well he’s wrong that officer has the right to do a pat down on the guy if he feels it's necessary well in this case he does. The officer will ask do you have anything on you I need to know about he will probably say no so the officer continues. The officer has no idea what he has on him so he has to take thing with percussion he has to make them put their hands behind their back or stand them up against a building, car, or anything like that so he can search him properly people can hide things anywhere. I think if we did not have this in everyday life then a lot more crimes would be committed. If we did not have this then a lot more shootings, killings, and stabbing would happen or people would get away with drug dealing which could be very dangerous. This could also be kinda okay if we didn't have it so lets say a mother needs to make money somehow she's not making much at her job now so she needs to make extra cash fast to help pay for bills so she does drug dealing she

-Circumstances under which an officer can conduct a search greatly involve an officer’s belief that probable cause exists. In other words, an officer can conduct a search when they believe that they contain a reasonable suspicion that the individual in which they want to search is guilty or will be guilty of a crime. This also comes to signify that the circumstance in which an office can conduct such searches revolves around the officer’s belief that the individual in question also contains illegal items or evidence.

Law enforcements officers are allowed to seize evidence or contraband without a warrant under the plain view doctrine. The contraband that is found under the plain view doctrine must be found under a legal and lawful observation. The plain view doctrine is most commonly in the airports by TSA Federal Government Officers because they are constantly screening individuals and their bags before the board the aircraft. This is an exception to the warrant requirement which means once a law enforcement officer observes or immediately recognizes an item as evidence or contraband then because the officer discovered the item in plain view then they are lawfully protected by the Fourth Amendment.

When reading doctrine three, I came to the conclusion that it talks about having the ability to look “outside of the box” and at times to listen to someone else’s reasoning. From reading Benjamin Franklin, I felt that he talks about this in the beginning when addressing the President about the Constitution and his approval. “I am not sure I shall never approve it; for, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change my opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment of others.” (Franklin 128) From this passage it shows that from being older and knowing that others could be right, gives him the ability to think correctly and express his stance on the matter in a professional manner. Towards the end of Franklin’s writings he agrees to the idea of the Constitution for reasons that the colonies need laws, but knows that there are reasons of faults from the human factor. (Franklin, np)

In this presentation of his notion of the state he ends up putting forward things which inspires some critics to accuse him of having totalitarian leanings. Things such as his assertion of the necessity of the state for humanity, his strong belief in an overriding spirit to a society, his connecting of freedom to reason and social order, are controversial notions. His allegiance to positive freedom brings attack from supporters of negative freedom, his notions of differing states for suiting differing societies appears anti-democratic and imperialistic, and his preference for a constitutional monarch seems unusual. It is these matters and others which have brought merited and less merited critique and objection to his work.

The Fifth Circuit confronted the question of whether sniffing by a dog is a search in terms of an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The appellate court noted that most courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have held that law enforcement use of canines for sniffing objects does not constitute a search. Specifically, the appellate court referenced cases involving checked luggage, shipped packages, public lockers, and cars on public streets. According to the court, a reasonable expectation of privacy does not extend to the airspace surrounding these objects. The court maintained that what has evolved is a doctrine of “public smell,” equivalent to the “plain view” theory (that is, an object in plain view can be seized under certain circumstances).