Many people are not aware of what a plain view doctrine means, many may have not even heard of this United States Law. This guide will explain how the plain view doctrine works in terms of the Fourth Amendment laws. The plain view doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment rights allowing law enforcement agents to make observations in a public place and the police see an object in plain view that was used in a crime the police can them seize that item under the plain view doctrine law.
Plain View Doctrine
In its simplest explanation, a plain view doctrine allows law enforcement if they feel they have probable cause they may seize objects that are in plain view if they feel these objects are contraband or used in a crime. The rule that an object falling into plain view by an officer has the right to seize that object without a warrant.
Keep in mind that there are limitations because of probable cause requirements. Law enforcement agents need to have probable cause that the object in plain view is indeed contraband before a search and or seize happens. Once an officer has lawfully viewed contraband the person’s interest in that object is lost.
Court Records Search
Powered by
Powered by
BeenVerified background check service searches through billions of records and dozens of databases.
The Fourth Amendment & Plain View Doctrine
The Fourth Amendment which is part of the bill of rights is responsible for the requirements for issuing warrants. it also does not allow unreasonable search and seizures to happen. You may or may not know that warrants have to be issued by a magistrate or judge that is justified by probable cause. The Fourth Amendment deals with a few issues in regards to searching and seizures, probable cause, and how violations of the Fourth Amendment should be handled. In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is needed for must search and seizures. But along with this rule, the Supreme court made some exceptions, evidence in plain view was one of them.
Search wihout a warrant
There are times that law enforcement agents can conduct a search without getting a warrant first the following include:
Plain View: During routine investigations and police notice illegal items such as drugs or weapons that are left out in plain sight police are then allowed to seize those types of items without getting a warrant first.
Consent by the person: Consent by given voluntarily and freely to give law enforcement consent to search. The person must be the one who would normally say that the area would be private.
Searching vehicles: Police can search areas within a vehicle if they believe there may be contraband present. They also can search the glove compartment when making an arrest to find any weapons or other types of items that could be a danger.
Protect against harm: Warrants can take some time to secure. If law enforcement feels that someone is in immitted danger then
Protects against destruction: If law enforcement believes that evidence could be lost or destroyed before a search warrant is issued by a judge when he or she is allowed to size said evidence without a search warrant.
Plain View Doctrine case: Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
Argued December 8, 1986
Decided March 3, 1987
480 U.S. 321
Syllabus
A bullet fired through the floor of respondent’s apartment injured a man on the floor below. Police entered the apartment to search for the shooter, for other victims, and for weapons, and there seized three weapons and discovered a stocking-cap mask. While there, one of the policemen noticed two sets of expensive stereo components and, suspecting that they were stolen, read and recorded their serial numbers — moving some of them, including a turntable, to do so — and phoned in the numbers to headquarters. Upon learning that the turntable had been taken in an armed robbery, he seized it immediately. Respondent was subsequently indicted for the robbery, but the state trial court granted his motion to suppress the evidence that had been seized, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Relying upon a statement in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, that a warrantless search must be “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation,” the Court of Appeals held that the policeman’s obtaining the serial numbers violated the Fourth Amendment because it was unrelated to the shooting, the exigent circumstance that justified the initial entry and search. Both state courts rejected the contention that the policeman’s actions were justified under the “plain view” doctrine.
