Plain View Doctrine is in essence a weapon for the regulation enforcement officers to show the legality of their search and seizure. (“Plain View Doctrine”) As a rule, regulation enforcement officers are sure by the 4th Modification which requires that earlier than they may conduct a search or arrest they need to first safe a sound search warrant or arrest warrant. Any object seized within the absence of a search warrant can be inadmissible in proof. One of many exceptions nevertheless to the search warrant requirement is the Plain View Doctrine.
The plain view doctrine provides validity to any search and seizure made by regulation enforcement officers even within the absence of search warrant. Though this doctrine is widely known as an exception to the search warrant requirement beneath the 4th Modification, in actuality, the regulation enforcement officer who discovers an unlawful contraband in plain view does probably not conduct a search. Quite, the regulation enforcement officer merely seizes what was already in his plain view.
In making use of the plain view doctrine on this truth sample, I give a certified reply.
There are two points on this case whether or not the marijuana cigarettes which the police officer discovered close to the stolen purse is admissible in proof beneath the plain view doctrine and whether or not the powdery substance the police officer discovered within the baggies on a patio desk is admissible in proof beneath the plain view doctrine. Within the first state of affairs, I argue that the marijuana cigarettes discovered on the bottom along with the opposite contents of the stolen purse is admissible in proof in opposition to its proprietor. The three necessities of the plain view doctrine are current on this case.
Firstly, the police officer found the marijuana cigarettes utilizing his sense of sight. Secondly, the officer had the precise to be within the place the place the merchandise was seen. It have to be confused that the police officer who found the marijuana performed a scorching pursuit operation of a fleeing suspect. In the middle of the chase, the suspect dropped the stolen purse spilling its contents. Thirdly, the marijuana cigarette was discovered exterior the purse and its discovery was not a results of prying or examination of the police officer. Clearly, the marijuana cigarette is admissible in opposition to its proprietor.
However, I argue that the powdery substance or the unlawful medicine discovered within the baggies on prime of the patio desk is inadmissible in proof for violation of the 4th Modification. On this case, the primary and third necessities of the plain view doctrine had been complied with. The police officer found the unlawful contraband utilizing his sense of sight and that the invention of the unlawful medicine was not the results of prying or examination. The unlawful medicine had been merely inadvertently found by the police officer when he entered the yard of the proprietor. Nevertheless, the second requirement was not complied with.
On this case, the police officer had no proper to be within the place the place he noticed the unlawful medicine. It have to be confused that the plain view doctrine applies solely when a lawful search is in progress or the officer was in any other case legally current on the place of the seizure. Following an extended line of jurisprudence, among the many doable the explanation why a police officer could also be thought-about to be legally current in a selected place is that if a) he’s serving a search warrant, b) he was in scorching pursuit of a suspect; c) he made the entry via legitimate consent; d) he made a sound arrest with or and not using a warrant.
The officer was not serving a search warrant since he had none. The officer was not additionally in scorching pursuit of a suspect as a result of when he entered the girl’s home the pursuit operation had ceased. On the time, the suspect was capable of escape from him. There was no lawful consent coming from the proprietor when he entered the premises. On the time of the invention, the police officer was not making a sound arrest with or and not using a warrant since there was no particular person to be arrested within the first place. Thus, I imagine that this proof is inadmissible in courtroom.
That is in keeping with the ruling of the courtroom within the case of Washington v. Chrisman (455 US 1), the place the courtroom dominated that the “The plain view doctrine, nevertheless, doesn’t authorize an officer to enter a dwelling and not using a warrant to grab contraband merely as a result of the contraband is seen from exterior the dwelling… the plain view doctrine applies solely after a lawful search is in progress or the officer was in any other case legally current on the place of the seizure. The preliminary intrusion have to be justified by a warrant, by an exception to the warrant requirement, or by different circumstances authorizing his presence. ”(455 US 1)