Supreme Court Case Summary
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Wendy D. Adams
Writing Sample
This writing sample represents one of two arguments constructed for the final paper in my Spring 2011 Legal Research & Writing class.
University of Idaho
-------------------------------------------------
ISSUE ON APPEAL
I. Should a court’s application of the single-purpose container exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement be based on the knowledge of a layperson because it satisfies the fundamental principles established by the U.S. Supreme Court for Fourth Amendment standards by being workable, objective, and limiting the risk of intrusion?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Voorhees …show more content…
Coolidge v. N.H., 403 U.S. 443 (1971); U.S. v. Williams, 41 F.3d 192, 197 (4th Cir. 1994). Within the construct of the plain view doctrine fall those containers that cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy against search because they may be “inferred by their outward appearance” to have a single purpose that effectively places the contents in “plain view.” Sanders, 442 U.S. at 765. A warrantless search is justified under this exception on three conditions: “(1) the seizing officer must be lawfully present in the place from which he can plainly view the evidence; 2) the officer has a lawful right of access to the object itself; and (3) it is immediately apparent that the item seized is incriminating on its face.” U.S. v. Williams, 41 F.3d. 191, 196 (1994) and Horton v. Cal., 496 U.S. 128, 136 …show more content…
Cal., 453 U.S. 420, 428 (1981); Ill. v. Andreas, 463 U.S. at 772. In other words, because the expectation of privacy recognized by the Fourth Amendment was established by general social norms, any standard used to evaluate whether an expectation of privacy exists under the Fourth Amendment must also contemplate general social norms. Robbins v. Cal., 453 U.S. at 428. This requires that, “to fall within the single-purpose container rule, a container must so clearly announce its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or otherwise, that its contents are obvious to [a layperson] observer.” Id. Conversely, because every officer has a unique level of expertise based on individual experience, allowing officers to exercise their subjective judgment can ONLY result in an inconsistent application of the rule. Indeed, as the split in court circuit interpretations would indicate, “no court, no constable, no citizen, can sensibly be asked to distinguish the relative ‘privacy interests’ in a closed suitcase, briefcase, portfolio, duffel bag, or box” under such a subjective standard. Id. at 427. Consider a hypothetical rectangular gun case labeled in Arabic found during a search conducted by an officer who happens to read the language. The case will be instantly recognizable
-------------------------------------------------
Wendy D. Adams
Writing Sample
This writing sample represents one of two arguments constructed for the final paper in my Spring 2011 Legal Research & Writing class.
University of Idaho
-------------------------------------------------
ISSUE ON APPEAL
I. Should a court’s application of the single-purpose container exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement be based on the knowledge of a layperson because it satisfies the fundamental principles established by the U.S. Supreme Court for Fourth Amendment standards by being workable, objective, and limiting the risk of intrusion?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Voorhees …show more content…
Coolidge v. N.H., 403 U.S. 443 (1971); U.S. v. Williams, 41 F.3d 192, 197 (4th Cir. 1994). Within the construct of the plain view doctrine fall those containers that cannot support a reasonable expectation of privacy against search because they may be “inferred by their outward appearance” to have a single purpose that effectively places the contents in “plain view.” Sanders, 442 U.S. at 765. A warrantless search is justified under this exception on three conditions: “(1) the seizing officer must be lawfully present in the place from which he can plainly view the evidence; 2) the officer has a lawful right of access to the object itself; and (3) it is immediately apparent that the item seized is incriminating on its face.” U.S. v. Williams, 41 F.3d. 191, 196 (1994) and Horton v. Cal., 496 U.S. 128, 136 …show more content…
Cal., 453 U.S. 420, 428 (1981); Ill. v. Andreas, 463 U.S. at 772. In other words, because the expectation of privacy recognized by the Fourth Amendment was established by general social norms, any standard used to evaluate whether an expectation of privacy exists under the Fourth Amendment must also contemplate general social norms. Robbins v. Cal., 453 U.S. at 428. This requires that, “to fall within the single-purpose container rule, a container must so clearly announce its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or otherwise, that its contents are obvious to [a layperson] observer.” Id. Conversely, because every officer has a unique level of expertise based on individual experience, allowing officers to exercise their subjective judgment can ONLY result in an inconsistent application of the rule. Indeed, as the split in court circuit interpretations would indicate, “no court, no constable, no citizen, can sensibly be asked to distinguish the relative ‘privacy interests’ in a closed suitcase, briefcase, portfolio, duffel bag, or box” under such a subjective standard. Id. at 427. Consider a hypothetical rectangular gun case labeled in Arabic found during a search conducted by an officer who happens to read the language. The case will be instantly recognizable