Today a high percentage of the arrests done by law enforcement are from seized evidence that was in plain view and does not come under the Fourth Amendment. The plain view doctrine states that items that are within the sight of a police officer who is legally in a place from which the view is made may properly be seized without a warrant as long as such items are immediately recognizable as subject to seizure (Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice 2004).
In other instances police can also seize evidence that is in open fields.
The open fields doctrine holds that items in open fields are not protected by the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, so they can properly be taken by an officer without a warrant or probable cause (Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice 2004).
The plain view doctrine has three requirements that must be met before the evidence can be introduce as evidence. These three requirements are that the officer has to be aware of the item through use of sight, must be legally in the place from which the evidence is seen, and it must be immediately apparent that the evidence is subject to seizure.
Any object falling under plain view of a police officer and who has a right to be in a position to have that view of the item it can be seized and introduce as evidence (Harris v. United States, 390 U. S. 234 [1968]).
The Essay on Applying The Daubert Standard To Forensic Evidence
Overview In this lab, you acted as a forensic specialist assisting the lead forensics investigator at the Cyber Crimes Division (CCD) for the Fremont Police Department. You were given a hard drive image taken from a seized computer suspected of containing stolen credit card numbers. You reviewed the search warrant and completed the Chain of Custody form that accompanied the evidence drive. You ...
The scenario states that during routine patrol two police officers witnessed a man running and swinging a purse in his right hand. A woman was running and yelling behind this man to stop and return the purse back to her. Both officers then gave chase of the suspect and led them to a public alley used for trash collection between the houses. The man continued running and dropped the purse.
The officers then lost sight of the suspect as he turned into another alley to another street. While the officers were walking back to the dropped purse one of the officers heard screaming from within a break walled backyard. The officer walked over to the wall and was able to see two juveniles in a fistfight. Their clothes were ripped, their eyes swollen, and their faces were bleeding. The officer entered the property through an open gate and broke up the fight. The officer observed several plastic baggies containing a white powdery substance on a patio table.
The officer called the boys’ parents walking towards the patio’s screen door. A woman, dressed in a nightgown exited the house and immediately started explaining the baggies on the table. The officer then arrested the woman for possession of narcotics. After the backyard was secured the other officer continued to the location where the purse was drooped. As he retrieved the purse the officer observed marihuana cigarettes among its spilled contents. The officer seized the evidence and arrested the purse’s owner. The scenario is self explanatory and covers in my opinion both doctrines in at list one of the situations.
When the officers were walking back to recover the purse one of the officers heard screaming. He approached the area where the screams were coming from and observed a crime being committed in his presence which was fight between two juveniles. The first requirement of the plain view doctrine was covered because he was legally inside the property due to the fight. Just as he went inside the property he observed the baggies containing a white powdery substance, which made him aware of the item through the use of sight.
When the officer contacted the woman she immediately tried to justify herself, she in effect admitted of having knowledge of the drugs. The officer immediately seized the baggies containing the white powdery substance and arrested the woman for drug possession. The officers immediately recognize the items as to being drugs without the result of further examination and seized the evidence. The officer had probable cause to believe that the baggies contained narcotics and the seizure was justified under plain view (Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730 [1983]).
The Essay on My Role as a Military Officer
Ever since the 9/11 attacks in the US, Americans have found a new sense of nationalism. This tragic event have invoked the sentiments of the people and intensified their love for democracy and freedom and their aversion for terrorism. As a result, thousands of able-bodies of men and women joined the US Armed Forces in order to retaliate from the terrorists who deliberately killed thousands of ...
All three of the requirements were met therefore the seizure was legal. In this scenario the open field doctrine does not apply because residential yards and fenced areas are not included in the doctrine. Once the officers secured the backyard scene where they recovered the baggies of drugs and arrested a woman, one of the officers continued to the location of the dropped purse. As he retrieved the purse he recognized marihuana cigarettes among its spilled contents. The marihuana cigarettes were in plain view of the officer and covered the three requirements of the plain view doctrine.
He had sight of the evidence; he was legally in the place from where the evidence was recovered, and recognized the evidence as to being marihuana (Texas v. Brown, 460 U. S. 730 [1983]).
Not only plain view applies, but also open fields doctrine may apply in this scenario because the evidence seize was recovered in a public place which is not associated with the sanctity of a man’s home, and the privacies of life.
