Plain View Doctrine In Open Field
Emily Arochi
Plain View/Open Fields
ADJ/275
February 7, 2010
In our readings the plain view doctrine states “that items that are within the sight of an 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”. There are some requirements of the plain view doctrine. One requirement is the awareness of the items solely through the officer’s sight. Another requirement is that the officer must be legally in the place of where the item is seen. There are a few ways the officer could be there legally which are; while serving a search warrant, while in pursuit of a suspect, entry with a valid consent, and while making a valid …show more content…
arrest. The last requirement is item must be immediately seized. The items seized are only admissible as evidence if all three requirements are met. The plain view doctrine is not covered in the fourth amendment.
In our reading it states “the open field’s 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.” There are certain areas that are not included in the open field’s doctrine.
One place is a house; houses are protected under the fourth amendment. Other places would be our curtilage. Curtilage is defined as “the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the ‘sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life”. Some examples of cartilage are yards, fenced areas, apartment houses, barns, and …show more content…
garages.
In the scenario the officers were pursuing a suspect that robbed a purse. During the pursuit the suspect dropped the pursuit but the officers kept on pursuing. The officers lost the suspect and headed back to the purse. While returning to the purse the officers heard screaming behind a brick-walled backyard. The officer looked through the wall and was able to see two boys in a fistfight. Where the boys clothes were ripped, had black eyes, and their faces were bloody the officer immediately acted and entered the yard and broke up the fight. After breaking up the fight the officer noticed a white substance in baggies on the patio. The officer than arrested the suspect and seized the drugs. The officers than returned to the purse where the contents were lying outside the purse and the officers saw marijuana cigarettes. The officers than immediately seized the drug and arrested the owner of the purse.
This scenario does fall under the plain view doctrine but could have some issues arise making some of the evidence seized that day non admissible in court.
The officers used nothing but their eyesight to find the drugs on the patio. The officers seized those drugs immediately. The officers were there legally doing their job while they were on patrol. Although it is the job of an officer to break up fights which is considered domestic violence, the suspect could fight the fact that the officers did not have permission to be on the property in turn making it so the drugs were seized illegally.
The officers were chasing a suspect that had just robbed a woman. After they encountered the purse the officer saw with their eyes the marijuana cigarettes. All three elements of the requirements were met. The officers were there legally as they were pursuing a suspect, the officers saw with only their eyes the marijuana, and they seized the marijuana at that exact moment. Since there was no fault in how the officers saw the marijuana it will be admissible in court and there should be no
problems.
The open field doctrine would not work in this scenario. A couple reasons would be because the officers could not see in an open field the drugs apprehended on the patio. In fact the officers had to go through a fence in order to see the drugs. A fence around a house makes the immediate environs within that fence a part of the curtilage, because the owner clearly intended that area to be private and not open to the general public. The doctrine specifically states that curtilage is protected by the fourth amendment and cannot be illegally searched or seized.
In my opinion the plain view doctrine is going to be most useful in this scenario. I say this because all of the items apprehended in the scenario were in plain view sight of the officers. The officers were there legally doing their jobs and they were not specifically looking for the items and they just came upon the items accidentally. The officers followed procedures to get these items. I feel as long as the officers were following the rules and met all of the requirements to the doctrine there is no reason why they cannot use the evidence in court.
References
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: LAW & PRACTICE COPYRIGHT © 2004 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning Chp 9
United States v. Sedillo laws. findlaw.com/us/496/151.html
Harris v. United States laws. findlaw.com/us/390/234.html
,
.
Plain View/Open Fields
ADJ/275
February 7, 2010
In our readings the plain view doctrine states “that items that are within the sight of an 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”. There are some requirements of the plain view doctrine. One requirement is the awareness of the items solely through the officer’s sight. Another requirement is that the officer must be legally in the place of where the item is seen. There are a few ways the officer could be there legally which are; while serving a search warrant, while in pursuit of a suspect, entry with a valid consent, and while making a valid …show more content…
arrest. The last requirement is item must be immediately seized. The items seized are only admissible as evidence if all three requirements are met. The plain view doctrine is not covered in the fourth amendment.
In our reading it states “the open field’s 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.” There are certain areas that are not included in the open field’s doctrine.
One place is a house; houses are protected under the fourth amendment. Other places would be our curtilage. Curtilage is defined as “the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the ‘sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life”. Some examples of cartilage are yards, fenced areas, apartment houses, barns, and …show more content…
garages.
In the scenario the officers were pursuing a suspect that robbed a purse. During the pursuit the suspect dropped the pursuit but the officers kept on pursuing. The officers lost the suspect and headed back to the purse. While returning to the purse the officers heard screaming behind a brick-walled backyard. The officer looked through the wall and was able to see two boys in a fistfight. Where the boys clothes were ripped, had black eyes, and their faces were bloody the officer immediately acted and entered the yard and broke up the fight. After breaking up the fight the officer noticed a white substance in baggies on the patio. The officer than arrested the suspect and seized the drugs. The officers than returned to the purse where the contents were lying outside the purse and the officers saw marijuana cigarettes. The officers than immediately seized the drug and arrested the owner of the purse.
This scenario does fall under the plain view doctrine but could have some issues arise making some of the evidence seized that day non admissible in court.
The officers used nothing but their eyesight to find the drugs on the patio. The officers seized those drugs immediately. The officers were there legally doing their job while they were on patrol. Although it is the job of an officer to break up fights which is considered domestic violence, the suspect could fight the fact that the officers did not have permission to be on the property in turn making it so the drugs were seized illegally.
The officers were chasing a suspect that had just robbed a woman. After they encountered the purse the officer saw with their eyes the marijuana cigarettes. All three elements of the requirements were met. The officers were there legally as they were pursuing a suspect, the officers saw with only their eyes the marijuana, and they seized the marijuana at that exact moment. Since there was no fault in how the officers saw the marijuana it will be admissible in court and there should be no
problems.
The open field doctrine would not work in this scenario. A couple reasons would be because the officers could not see in an open field the drugs apprehended on the patio. In fact the officers had to go through a fence in order to see the drugs. A fence around a house makes the immediate environs within that fence a part of the curtilage, because the owner clearly intended that area to be private and not open to the general public. The doctrine specifically states that curtilage is protected by the fourth amendment and cannot be illegally searched or seized.
In my opinion the plain view doctrine is going to be most useful in this scenario. I say this because all of the items apprehended in the scenario were in plain view sight of the officers. The officers were there legally doing their jobs and they were not specifically looking for the items and they just came upon the items accidentally. The officers followed procedures to get these items. I feel as long as the officers were following the rules and met all of the requirements to the doctrine there is no reason why they cannot use the evidence in court.
References
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: LAW & PRACTICE COPYRIGHT © 2004 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning Chp 9
United States v. Sedillo laws. findlaw.com/us/496/151.html
Harris v. United States laws. findlaw.com/us/390/234.html
,
.