Plain View Doctrine Essay

Plain View Doctrine is in essence a weapon for the law enforcement officers to prove the legality of their search and seizure. (â€Å"Plain View Doctrine†) As a rule, law enforcement officers are bound by the 4th Amendment which requires that before they could conduct a search or arrest they must first secure a valid search warrant or arrest warrant. Any object seized in the absence of a search warrant will be inadmissible in evidence. One of the exceptions however to the search warrant requirement is the Plain View Doctrine. The plain view doctrine gives validity to any search and seizure made by law enforcement officers even in the absence of search warrant. Although this doctrine is widely recognized as an exception to the search warrant requirement under the 4th Amendment, in reality, the law enforcement officer who discovers an illegal contraband in plain view does not really conduct a search. Rather, the law enforcement officer merely seizes what was already in his plain view. In applying the plain view doctrine in this fact pattern, I give a qualified answer. There are two issues in this case whether the marijuana cigarettes which the police officer found near the stolen purse is admissible in evidence under the plain view doctrine and whether the powdery substance the police officer found in the baggies on a patio table is admissible in evidence under the plain view doctrine. In the first scenario, I argue that the marijuana cigarettes found on the ground together with the other contents of the stolen purse is admissible in evidence against its owner. The three requirements of the plain view doctrine are present in this case. Firstly, the police officer discovered the marijuana cigarettes using his sense of sight. Secondly, the officer had the right to be in the place where the item was seen. It must be stressed that the police officer who discovered the marijuana conducted a hot pursuit operation of a fleeing suspect. In the course of the chase, the suspect dropped the stolen purse spilling its contents. Thirdly, the marijuana cigarette was found outside the purse and its discovery was not a result of prying or examination of the police officer. Clearly, the marijuana cigarette is admissible against its owner. On the other hand, I argue that the powdery substance or the illegal drugs found in the baggies on top of the patio table is inadmissible in evidence for violation of the 4th Amendment. In this case, the first and third requirements of the plain view doctrine were complied with. The police officer discovered the illegal contraband using his sense of sight and that the discovery of the illegal drugs was not the result of prying or examination. The illegal drugs were merely inadvertently discovered by the police officer when he entered the yard of the owner. However, the second requirement was not complied with. In this case, the police officer had no right to be in the place where he saw the illegal drugs. It must be stressed that the plain view doctrine applies only when a lawful search is in progress or the officer was otherwise legally present at the place of the seizure. Following a long line of jurisprudence, among the possible reasons why a police officer may be considered to be legally present in a particular place is if a) he is serving a search warrant, b) he was in hot pursuit of a suspect; c) he made the entry through valid consent; d) he made a valid arrest with or without a warrant. The officer was not serving a search warrant since he had none. The officer was not also in hot pursuit of a suspect because when he entered the woman’s house the pursuit operation had ceased. At the time, the suspect was able to escape from him. There was no lawful consent coming from the owner when he entered the premises. At the time of the discovery, the police officer was not making a valid arrest with or without a warrant since there was no person to be arrested in the first place. Thus, I believe that this evidence is inadmissible in court. This is consistent with the ruling of the court in the case of Washington v. Chrisman (455 US 1), where the court ruled that the â€Å"The plain view doctrine, however, does not authorize an officer to enter a dwelling without a warrant to seize contraband merely because the contraband is visible from outside the dwelling†¦ the plain view doctrine applies only after a lawful search is in progress or the officer was otherwise legally present at the place of the seizure. The initial intrusion must be justified by a warrant, by an exception to the warrant requirement, or by other circumstances authorizing his presence. †(455 US 1)