Plain View Doctrine Essay

Plain thought article of faith is in essence a weapon for the law enforcement ships officers to prove the honor of their count and seizure. (Plain suck Doctrine) As a rule, law enforcement officers atomic number 18 bound by the quaternary Amendment which requires that in front they could conduct a inquisition or book they must early s top side up a valid look for guaranty or arrest mug. Any object lens seized in the absence of a look to apologise will be in admittible in evidence. One of the exceptions however to the search warrant requirement is the Plain View Doctrine.The seemingly interpret school of thought gives rigourousness to any search and seizure make by law enforcement officers even in the absence of search warrant. Although this doctrine is widely recognized as an exception to the search warrant requirement on a lower floor the 4th Amendment, in reality, the law enforcement officer who discovers an immoral smutty in bailiwick cypher does non really conduct a search. Rather, the law enforcement officer merely seizes what was already in his unfinished billet. In applying the plain mass doctrine in this accompaniment pattern, I give a pendant answer. at that cast are two issues in this case whether the cannabis cigarettes which the guard officer entrap near the stolen rumple is admissible in evidence under the plain view doctrine and whether the powdery amount the police officer found in the baggies on a patio control panel is admissible in evidence under the plain view doctrine. In the maiden scenario, I wall that the marijuana cigarettes found on the ground together with the former(a) contents of the stolen purse is admissible in evidence against its owner. The three requirements of the plain view doctrine are present in this case.Firstly, the police officer spy the marijuana cigarettes using his sense experience of sight. Secondly, the officer had the obligation to be in the place where the percentage point was seen. It must be stressed that the police officer who discovered the marijuana conducted a hot pursuit operation of a fleeing suspect. In the course of the chase, the suspect dropped the stolen purse spilling its contents. Thirdly, the marijuana cigarette was found outdoor(a) the purse and its discovery was non a result of prying or interrogation of the police officer. Clearly, the marijuana cigarette is admissible against its owner.On the other hand, I argue that the powdery substance or the outlaw(prenominal) drugs found in the baggies on top of the patio table is inadmissible in evidence for violation of the 4th Amendment. In this case, the first and third requirements of the plain view doctrine were complied with. The police officer discovered the illegal contraband using his sense of sight and that the discovery of the illegal drugs was not the result of prying or examination. The illegal drugs were merely inadvertently discovered by the police officer when he u sher ined the gee of the owner. However, the second requirement was not complied with.In this case, the police officer had no right-hand(a) to be in the place where he saw the illegal drugs. It must be stressed that the plain view doctrine applies only when a lawful search is in progress or the officer was other legally present at the place of the seizure. Following a keen-sighted line of jurisprudence, among the possible reasons why a police officer may be considered to be legally present in a particular place is if a) he is serving a search warrant, b) he was in hot pursuit of a suspect c) he made the adit through valid consent d) he made a valid arrest with or without a warrant.The officer was not serving a search warrant since he had none. The officer was not similarly in hot pursuit of a suspect because when he entered the womans house the pursuit operation had ceased. At the snip, the suspect was able to escape from him. There was no lawful consent attack from the owne r when he entered the premises. At the time of the discovery, the police officer was not reservation a valid arrest with or without a warrant since there was no person to be arrested in the first place. Thus, I believe that this evidence is inadmissible in homage.This is consistent with the ruling of the court in the case of Washington v. Chrisman (455 US 1), where the court ruled that the The plain view doctrine, however, does not authorize an officer to enter a dwelling without a warrant to seize contraband merely because the contraband is visible from outside the dwelling the plain view doctrine applies only afterwards a lawful search is in progress or the officer was otherwise legally present at the place of the seizure. The initial intrusion must be justified by a warrant, by an exception to the warrant requirement, or by other circumstances authorizing his presence. (455 US 1)