It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Issue(s): Whether the seizure of the items in “plain-view” was a violation of the Fourth Amendment
Reasoning: The court held that the items seized from the petitioner’s home were discovered during a lawful search authorized by a valid warrant. When they were discovered, it was immediately apparent to the officer that they constituted incriminating evidence. He had probable cause, not only to obtain a warrant to search for the stolen property, but also to believe that the weapons and handguns had been used in the crime he was investigating. The search was authorized by the warrant; the seizure was authorized by the “plain-view” doctrine. The court went into Justice Stewarts interpretation of the “plain-view” doctrine by stating that if an article is already in plain view, neither its observation nor its seizure would involve any invasion of privacy. A seizure of the article, however, would obviously invade the owner’s possessory interest. The problem with the plain view doctrine has been to identify the circumstances in which plain view has legal significance rather than being simply the normal concomitant of any search, legal or illegal. Two limitations to the doctrine, according to Justice Stewart is that first, “plain view” alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence, and second, that the discovery of evidence in plain view must be inadvertent. Moreover, two additional conditions that must be satisfied to justify the warrantless seizure: First, not only must the item be in plain view; its incriminating character must also be ‘immediately apparent’. Second, not only must the officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen, but he or she must also have a lawful right to access to the object itself. The court also held that in this case, the scope of the search was not enlarged in the slightest by the omission of any reference to the weapons in the warrant. Indeed, if the three rings and other items named in the warrant had been found at the outset—or if petitioner had them in his possession and had responded to the warrant by producing them immediately—no search for weapons could have taken place.
Plain View Doctrine--this refers to police use of their senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Anything detected by these means does NOT have Fourth Amendment protection if officers are lawfully present when they detect something by these means. A number of subdoctrines have developed, such as "plain feel", "plain smell", and "plain hearing", and the current controversy is whether electronic aids for the senses constitute a search or should be part of the Plain View Doctrine. In general, evidence of ANOTHER crime that is immediately observable without a search is seizable. In 1971, the standard was "inadvertent discovery" (not necessarily looking for anything incriminating; e.g., looking inside car to read VIN number or fix fuse and seeing weapon under dashboard or car seat) but due to courts being unable to define "inadvertent discovery", this standard was abolished in Horton v. California (1990) and replaced with a three-prong test: (a) officer engaged in lawful activity at the time; (b) the object’s incriminating character was immediately apparent and not concealed, and (c) the officer had lawful access to the object and it was discovered accidentally. For example, in a roadside stop, the driver opens a glove box to get their registration or proof of insurance, and the officer views what in his or her experience looks like a container of drugs or a weapon.
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by Deebo
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I did not commit a crime, It is my word against 2 officers + a supervisor. Do you think a serf like me would win that, without being able to afford a lawyer at the time? Honestly man, I know my rights, but in my situation.. "get outa jail free vs 6 years in a state prison" come on.