Plain View Doctrine

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.

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

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

Evidence that is illegally obtained cannot be used in a criminal trial and officers must have a valid warrant before conducting searches or seizing evidence (Weeks v. U.S., 1914).

Third, the area to be searched and any item to be seized must be described with particularity (Hall, 2016.) There must be very specific information to obtain a search warrant. A warrant that authorizes a police officer to search a particular home for “unauthorized contraband” violates the Fourth Amendment (Hall, 2016.) A warrant authorizing a search of the same home is valid, provided the warrant is valid in all other respects (Hall, 2016.) The items seized must be very specific and usable items to convict the criminal of his or her actions within the act.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

When it comes to Search and Seizure, allot of people think that law enforcement should not be allowed to search or seize property. I have heard many arguments against this subject, people stating that law enforcement officers go too far or have no right to search someone’s property such as their vehicle. Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion it requires that a combination of facts makes it more likely than not that items sought are where police believe them to be. In addition to establishing probable cause for a search, a warrant must contain the reasons for obtaining it, the names of people presenting the affidavits, what is specifically being sought and the signature of the judge issuing it.

If the police officer precedes to search the resident’s house without obtaining a search warrant the evidence obtained can be deemed illegal under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. “Under this rule, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, evidence that has been seized illegally is considered “tainted” and cannot be used against a suspect.” [6] The Exclusionary Rule could also be used as cited in the Mapp v. Ohio case. Anything obtained illegally could be deemed tainted or inadmissible in court. It is imperative that the police officers follow all procedures faithfully and as per the tenets that the courts have set up. Any mistakes can, and regularly do, permit a liable party to go free on a technicality.

The legal right is with the officers which allows them to search passenger compartments which are found in the suspect’s vehicle. If officer feels that adequate suspicion exist, they have every right to conduct limited suspect search. Vehicles can be searched by the officials without a warrant, if they have the probable cause with them as per the fourth amendment.

In the court case United States v. Ludwig the police took a narcotics dog through a parking lot in hopes that he would find the scent of drugs (www.loompanatics.com). Since a motorized vehicle has the ability to be driven far away and evidence can be removed, police believe that under certain circumstances they can search a car without a warrant. A dog alerted the cops by letting them know he smelled the scent of narcotics. They asked the suspect if they can search his truck. The suspect didn’t give them consent he was against the search but they still took the keys from him to search the truck. They found drugs in his trunk and a couple of large bags of marijuana. The police didn’t have a warrant nor did they have permission from the suspect to search his truck. The Supreme Court first ruled that it was unlawful to search his car without a warrant and no legit reasoning for the search. Then the court ruled that it was lawful because the officers said that the dog alerting them, were their reasoning for a warrantless search. The cops also stated in court that the reason they took the suspect’s keys is because if they have didn’t, there was a possibility that he could drive off and get rid off the drugs which would be their loss of evidence. This case shows how citizens have certain rights when it comes to their vehicles but they can still be ‘violated” in a sense.

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holds that when officers receive consent to search with no limitations, only spaces and containers that appear to “obviously” not belong to the consenter are excepted from their search. See, e.g., Synpe, 441 F.3d at 136-37. The Seventh Circuit holds similarly that if officers do not have “positive knowledge” that the consenter does not have authority over the space or container prior to the search, then the search is reasonable. See, e.g., Melgar, 227 F.3d at

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.

On June 4th, 1990, Terry Brice Horton vs. California was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 7-2 that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit warrantless seizure of evidence, which is granted due to the plain view doctrine. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures.

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to