attachment_1 - 2021-11-04T062430.452
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Grand Canyon University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
441
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by vincentw.
Running head: LAW
1
Law
Aliyah Gonzales
Grand Canyon University <JUS-441>
October 3, 2021
Professor Estrada
LAW
2
Question 1
The plain view doctrine is part of the US bill of rights, developed in Coolidge v. New
Hampshire as an exception from the fourth amendment’s warrant requirements. It includes three
main conditions; a valid entry before the observation of the evidence or the contraband,
inadvertence, and probable cause without further searching. The doctrine dictates that having a
warranty is a requirement for any officer without a subterfuge to obtain the contraband or
evidence. The observation must not be something anticipated by the officer before sight. The
probable cause condition states that the officer needs to be present at the physical location of the
contraband or evidence (Holtz, 1991).
The doctrine’s probable cause requires that the police officer should only have enough
proof that the observation is evidence or contraband, ruling out the need to have a warrant before
seizing any item. It also authorizes immediate seizing of contrabands and evidence without any
further search actions. Under this requirement, if the evidence or contraband does not meet the
requirements of probable cause, the office is not allowed to conduct a nonnutritive search to add
more substance to the evidence. In the Arizona V. Hicks, the plain view did not apply as it was
ruled out that the seizure of the record player was unlawful since the serial number found as
evidence was not part of the plain view. The case required the officer to have a warranty.
The third requirement dictates that it is mandatory for an officer to be physically present
at the location of the observation. It states that the officer must obtain a warrant to rely on plain
view doctrine; the officer may also rely on the doctrine in the event of an unrelated warrant. In
Arizona V. Hicks, the officers were on the scene with the exception of warranty which
disqualified the evidence from the plain view doctrine.
LAW
3
Question 2
Adopting the Henderson case would negatively affect public policy. Public policy is
where all courts in the country embrace and apply a regulation. In this case, it means that all the
law enforcement officers will be seizing and searching people without adequate reasons. This
would lead to violating the privacy of people and would bring chaos and demonstrations in the
country. The officers are granted the power to perform searches, but the probable cause is
significant because it limits their power. The importance of this limitation is to ensure that they
respect the citizens and their properties. Adopting this case would lead to having scenarios where
police officers no longer take time to think about why they are doing a search. They will be
doing it just for the sake of it, and some may take advantage of this as a way of embarrassing or
expressing how powerful they are. The probable cause is meant to ensure that there is a good
reason for engaging in the search. Thus, this would be an ineffective public policy that will have
negative consequences in the entire country.
Question 3
The Arizona v. Hicks allowed the 4th Amendment that demands the police to yield
probable cause before seizing items in plain view. In this case, therefore, the policing agencies
are required to follow the Arizona v. Hicks case (Kuker, 1987). For instance, a random person is
relaxing in his home, listening to music perhaps, with a handgun on the table and a bag stashed
with cash. Later on, the neighbor calls on the police complaining of persistent noise coming from
the next door. The person has a habit of maintaining excessively high music sounds and hears
none of the neighbor's complaints. The individual hears the knock and opens the door. The
officer has the head gun and a bag stashed with cash in his plain view by standing at the door.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
LAW
4
The officer also has the legal right to stand at the door based on the complaint lodged earlier. The
main question in this scenario is whether the officer has the probable cause (by upholding
Arizona v. Hicks case) to link the two items on the table with any form of crime. The probable
cause, in this case, would arise if the officer is compelled that the handgun and cash are related to
a crime and can therefore take them from the individual (based on plain view doctrine). Question 4
If varying interpretations of the plain view doctrine occur, fundamental differences exist
between the jurisdictions. Based on the main elements of the doctrine, an officer should be
present at the locations where the evidence is viewed, the officer has the right to access the
items, and the officer is allowed legally to incriminate the character of the object if it is apparent.
Based on the elements outlined above, various arguments and interpretations may crop up on
what should be included in plain view doctrine. In case of differences in jurisdictions, the
interpretations may lead courts into the dilemma of verifying whether the evidence was taken
legally or not. Also, the differences may lead to incriminating innocent individuals based on the
plain view doctrines (Lewis & Mannle, 1976). Therefore, jurisdiction should be amended to
enforce the plain view doctrine, where police officers are allowed to present enough burden of
proof before presenting evidence in court (Kuker, 1987). An example of interpretations of the
doctrine would include a police officer who pulls over a motorist for minor traffic offenses. The
officer notices a handgun on the car's rear seat and quickly concludes that the motorist is
possessing the gun unlawfully. In such a case, the court may argue that the officer needed to
have more evidence before repossessing the gun from the driver.
LAW
5
References
Holtz, L. E. (1991). The" Plain Touch" Corollary: A Natural and Foreseeable Consequence of the Plain View Doctrine
. Retrieved from
https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3193&context=dlra
Kuker, R. J. (1987). Arizona v. Hicks: Probable Cause Requirement Under the Plain View Doctrine.
J. Marshall L. Rev.
,
21
, 903.
Lewis, P. W., & Mannle, H. W. (1976). Warrantless Searches and the" Plain View" Doctrine: Current Perspective.
Crim. L. Bull.
,
12
, 5-7.