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…
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…
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