CRJ325 - WEEK 6 - DISCUSSION 6

"The Fourth (4th) Amendment: The New Frontier."

Read the article titled, “Still the American Frontier: Fourth (4th) Amendment Litigation” located at http://wispd.org/attachments/article/220/Still%20the%20American%20Frontier-%20Fourth%20Amendment%20Litigation.pdf. Explain in your own words situations in which the plain view doctrine applies. List other exceptions to this doctrine not mentioned in the text? Please support your response.

Prior to discussing the Plainview Doctrine the stated fact of the Fourth Amendment provides the active right to privacy and the two constitutional rights that limit the powers of the police in the search and seizure. In relation to privacy and reasonable expectation two requirements are present as follows: 1) The person has right to exhibit an actual expectation of privacy and 2) The expectation is one that society view and prepare to recognize and state as reasonable. Therein comes the quandary when the effective state of the warrant issued states with specifics that the search is for a particular element and an evidential find surfaces that leads to an infringement of a subject’s Fourth Amendment’s right and reflects a provable violation then summarily the Plainview Doctrine alternatively causes a conflictual pattern that allows the permissive state to challenge any compromisable evidence seized.

Seizures are based upon with a warrant (the rule – with specifications) and without a warrant (the exception or dependent on circumstances) and as such the Plainview Doctrine covers a differing amount of scenarios which would allow the seizing of condemnatory evidence but as each scenario alternates so does the approach to seize and is conditional as each investigative strategy is acted out.

With a valid stop, the officer is allowed to seize illegal items in plainview. With an invalid stop, harassment or color or race identified can purposely cause reason to challenge an unreasonable stop, seizure and support a motion to dismiss contraband or findings. In effect the Plainview Doctrine must have probable cause which parallels to a stop that is also conditioned to reasonable suspicion.

Further as stipulated by the Plainview Doctrine police officers have the right to seize items that are in plainview as long as they have the legal right and are positioned to see the items and may seize without warrant. Also, plainview is not categorized as a search but is an element of a valid stop, questioning and investigative state of the stop or search of a premises or home and must adhere to all three requirements as follows:

• The officer must have gained awareness of the item solely by sighting it
• The officer must be in that physical position legally
• It must be immediately apparent that it is a seizable item

As such an example of the case of Horton illustrates the purpose of probable cause as well as reasonable suspicion to search for proceeds of a robbery and weapons used in the robbery. The affidavit for warrant specified both weapons and proceeds for authorization but was issued and authorized for proceeds only. After executing and delivering the warrant proceeds were not found but weapons in plainview and were seized.

Basically the contamination in this case is the restricted purpose of the warrant and the three specifics of Plainview that must be adhered to which conditions that the officer has no purpose but what is on that warrant and any other inquiry is illegal because he is violating the Fourth Amendment, violating the owner’s privacy and expectation and right to own, and his own purpose in that structure is illegal.

Other exceptions to this doctrine are inclusive of:

• Removal of inadvertency
• Purpose and intent that is not detailed and noted properly (erroneously written and executed) (particularity requirement)
• Reasonable and Judgmental Call
• Must have warrant for Premises
• Compromised privacy does not lead to justification of utilizing Plainview Doctrine
• Questionable Ownership
• Possible Violation of the Fourth Amendment
• The validity or invalidity of the warrant affects the seizure as it renders it a use or useless (admissible or inadmissible)

These exceptions are very effective to the state of whether the Plainview Doctrine can be used, restricted and summarily viewed as a critical purpose in the allowance of evidence to compose and make a case. Further with the adherence to the three requirements and listed exceptions this will be a causal effect to act with prudence, accuracy, right and correctness.

Describe two (2) situations where you feel that strip, body cavity, or x-ray searches would be merited.

Two situations where I feel that a strip, body cavity or x-ray search would be merited would be in the case that a drug raid has been done on a “cooker”. (A cooker is the place where drugs are manufactured and wrapped for distribution and removal.)

In this case the automatic assumption is that panic causes people to hide contraband and as thus the last suspected place is on the person internally and therefore during the arrest process, booking and jailing a strip, body cavity with x-ray search would be a good call based on the merit of the situation and predictability.

Another situation would be during a valid stop without warrant and again the hiding of contraband or evidence is predictable and in that case a strip, body or x-ray may be merited.

Thank you.

Felicia

file:///C:/Users/Felicia%20McCaw/Desktop/CRJ325/PLAINVIEW%20.pdf
file:///C:/Users/Felicia%20McCaw/Desktop/CRJ325/Still%20the%20American%20Frontier-%20Fourth%20Amendment%20Litigation.pdf
http://www.ravishly.com/2014/12/11/ultimate-humiliation-what-its-be-prison-strip-searched


REPLY TO CO-STUDENT

I agree that the Plain View doctrine is effective when a valid stop concedes a chance to identify or sight drug paraphernalia, or guns or anything that could be termed a tool in acts of criminality. This sends up a flag to search without warrant which could involve totally dismantling the car.

I have not traveled much so the idea is really intriguing and I would like to be exposed to this just to experience being in a tube being scanned, searched with various items hidden just to try it.

Interesting isn't it a chain gang in Georgia. I always think further South, I feel for them the indignity of their position being incarcerated and searched while hot as "h" and no chance to shower and clean themselves. The psychological impact is just overwhelming to conceive people are being treated like this. I realize the purpose is security for the police staff and co-prisoners but it still is a thought I find offensive.

Thank you.

Felicia

REPLY TO CO-STUDENT

Even though the Plain View Doctrine may be utilized but the fact remains that no one would allow a gun and cash to be in plain sight. First of all, they (police) have no right to enter at all without warrant...a crack in the door is all that is necessary. If a person is not trusting of strangers they don't have to open the door but speak thru it.

A noise ordinance is not a crime they (police) can only tell you to turn it down and warn next they will get a citation.

All searches whether indignant are still a necessary part of security but I don't feel that a strip, body cavity or x-ray would be necessary. A simple wand should be sufficient and not the purpose of humiliation and degradation. The other search method of "strip, body cavity or x-ray search" is routine and warranted

Thank you.

Felicia