The Plain View Doctrine In Law Enforcement

The plain view doctrine allows a law enforcement agent to conduct a search and seize evidence or contraband when in plain view during a lawful observation without a warrant. An example of a plain view doctrine is when an officer stops someone for a traffic violation and observes marijuana sitting on the front seat in plain sight. This is reasonable cause to enter the vehicle to make a search without a

The plain view doctrine permits an officer to seize evidence without a warrant, if the officer is in a legal position to see the evidence (Hall, 2015). In my police academy law classes our instructors would state right to be, right seize. The plain view doctrine relies on the following elements for a warrantless seizure to be lawful, which includes the officer must lawfully be in an area from which the object to be seized is in plain view, and the officer does in fact, identify the item (Hall, 2015, p. 424). Additionally, the officer possesses probable cause to believe the object is connected to a crime, and the officer has a right to access object itself. The officer may not manipulate something with the intent of gaining a better vantage

“In an extension of the plain view doctrine, officers are also allowed to do a protective sweep when they make an arrest on or outside private premises. They may, despite the absence of a search warrant, examine the entire premises for other persons whose presence would pose a threat either to their safety or to evidence that could be removed or destroyed.” [5] The police officer has the right to seize anything in plain view while conducting the sweep. The police officer would need to lock down the house after the sweep and apply for the search warrant.

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.

Secondly, Inevitable Discovery Doctrine. With this exception, two modes of seizing evidence are considered but only one is physical. Illegal means are used in the securing of the evidence physically. The other seizure of evidence is hypothetical and is seized illegally.

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.

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).)

The following exceptions require probable cause: plain view, mobile conveyance, destruction of evidence, fresh pursuit and emergency scene. Destruction of evidence is an exigent circumstances that permits search and seizure without a warrant. If an officer has probable cause to believe that evidence is being destroyed inside, the officer does not need a search warrant to enter the property and seize the evidence.

As a consequence, illegally seized evidence cannot be used against the suspect, and the suspect can be released, and evidence dismissed even if the officer knows the suspect is guilty of the crime. Nevertheless, under certain

According to Encyclopedia Britannica the exclusionary rule, in American law, states that any evidence seized unlawfully by the police is in violation of the Fourth Amendment (The Editors of The Encyclopedia Britannica). The exclusionary rule was created to exclude any evidence obtained during an illegal search to be used in federal and state courts. The principal behind it is to protect the constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment that may be threatened by police misconduct. Also to secure

To determine whether or not the admission of evidence is constitutionally permissible can be a very tough decision. There are many laws and regulations that must be adhered to in order for evidence to be admissible to ensure that a defendant’s right are not violated. One of the most important rules that help protect against illegal evidence being admitted into evidence is the Exclusionary rule. This rule helps to ensure that evidence which is admissible into criminal prosecutions are not only relevant and reliable, but have not violated the fourth or fifth amendment due to misconduct. Specifically, the exclusionary rule forbids evidence obtained by violating a defendant’s constitutional rights to be introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of proving direct guilt Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 218-219).Police misconduct often leads to evidence that can either be obtained legally through the use of illegal evidence, evidence that is illegally obtained through violations of other rules, regulations, a defendants rights, or evidence that is obtained illegally but falls under one of the exclusionary rule exceptions such as the plain view doctrine (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 219-221).

Under the fourth amendment, each individual in the United States is protected against unreasonable search as seizures. However, if there is probable cause law enforcement can perform a warrantless search without a warrant. Some examples in which law enforcement perform warrantless searches include: consent to search, plain view, and extreme emergency purposes. Under the fourth amendment, law enforcement can perform a warrantless search under these conditions. The reason law enforcement can perform a warrantless search based on consent is because an individual has given them the right to search their property. Therefore, anything that an officer find can be used in court. In the Schneckloth v. Bustamante 1973 case, the U.S. Supreme Court held

When we refer to the book information on plain view, consent, vehicle, and administrative search, we gather more information on what is permitted to the police. However, if a person wants to learn by specific point the video What kind of searches do not require a search warrant? By CMHartHayslett on youtube.com, he would explain the search incident to a lawful arrest. He would give a few example so the student or any person watching his video could understand his message to the public.

Sometimes police officers don’t find the suspect and they keep digging for evidence and culprits. The film states that they can’t go searching in someone’s house without a search warrant, but any garbage is up for grabs because garbage is considered abandoned property. Police officers are also allowed to stop and frisk people if they have suspicions or evidence. So, that means that even if someone smells like marijuana and they don’t see them smoking it,