Plain View Doctrine Permits Search & Seizure Without Probable Cause - Essay Sample

Introduction

The plain view doctrine permits a law enforcement officer to seize objects not listed in the warrant when doing a legal search or seizure if he realizes that the object in plain view and has probable cause to believe that it is linked with criminal work (Linnemann, 2017). The object under question should immediately show an incriminating character. In the case of New York v. Henderson (2016), the plain view doctrine allows police officers to do a search or seizure without a probable cause.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A probable cause is a legal requirement under the fourth amendment, which requires to fulfilled before police can get a warrant, conduct a search, or make an arrest. The justice system applies the probable cause doctrine in circumstances when there is a rational basis for the conviction that a crime may have been conducted (Ortman, 2016). Also, probable cause is used when crime evidence is available in the place to be searched. However, under some allowable circumstances, a search can be conducted without a warrant. In the case of New York v. Henderson (2016), a search can be done without necessarily fulfilling the requirements of the probable cause. This means that the police can search based on a reasonable suspicion that the place of search has other illegal objects.

The adoption of the Henderson case would affect policing in different ways. Firstly, the police would act under the confines of the plain view doctrine only. This means that the police can seize and search for objects not described in the search warrant if the object is within a plain view and is linked to criminal activity. This means that the object should show a potential incriminating character. Additionally, objects that are enclosed in containers or not in plain view cannot be searched under this doctrine unless it is included in the warrant. As such, the police have more freedom to conduct searches without many legal confinements.

The adoption of the Henderson case means that the police officers would not be required to fulfill the requirements of the probable cause. This means that the law enforcement officers can get a warrant, conduct a search, and arrest a suspect without a probable cause. This means that the probable cause would be applied synonymously to exigent circumstances. Moreover, the adoption of Henderson's ruling would allow the police officers to seize an abject under reasonable suspicion that the concerned object is linked with perpetration of crime or criminal activity.

If a policing organization object to the Henderson case, I think they are required to render more substantive law safe gourds as in the Arizona v. Hicks case. However, the fourth amendment provides clear guidelines to be followed during a search or seizure. For example, for a policing organization to be allowed to search, they must have a warrant, and the search must be done within the confines of the probable cause. Moreover, the policing organization should prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the search or arrest was conducted reasonably within the law. For instance, if the policing organization fails to perform the search as guided in the fourth amendment, then they should provide the exceptions of the search or arrest.

In the Arizona v. Hicks case, for instance, the search of the stereo equipment was an infraction of the fourth amendment. However, Justice Scalia referred to the court's determination in Coolidge V. New Hampshire (1971) that upheld the plain view doctrine that permits the law enforcement agents to search visible items without a warrant. Justice Scalia said that the search is done against the requirements of the probable cause was unconstitutional, and therefore Hicks won (Cloutier,1991). Similarly, a policing organization should provide a detailed explanation of all the legal, safe gourds, for example, detailing how their actions are within the confines of the constitution.

Plain view doctrine permits police officers to search visible items that the agents believe they can be connected with the criminal activity. The items to be searched may not necessarily be listed under the search warrant. If there is a difference in understanding between jurisdictions in the plain view doctrine, then the courts should re-look at the original constitutional clause that sought to speak about it (Romero, 1987). A committee of legal experts should be formed and tasked with researching what the original creators of the constitution intended when formulating the probable clause. Thus, the step would allow a better understanding of the clause and provide the original meaning.

In the case where the plain view doctrine creates notable variations between legal powers, the judges involved in the rulings should come together and harmonize their decisions. This means that the circumstances and case scenarios involved should be scrutinized and considered for the judgments made. Then the judges should develop a uniform legal framework for handling similar cases to avoid confusion. Moreover, the judges should have a standard way of categorizing different scenarios so that once a case has been presented to them, they can know which category the case belongs to. Such a measure would ensure uniform judgments for cases involving different interpretations of the plain view doctrine.

The plain view doctrine is an integral part of the fourth amendment. The doctrine allows law enforcement agents to search for objects not listed in the warrant if they believe that the items constitute part of the crime. However, the items to be searched must be visible. The probable cause doctrine allows police to conduct a warrantless search or seizure if there is a rational basis for the conviction that a crime is available at the place to be searched. If a contrary understanding of the plain view doctrines creates deviation in legal powers, then the judges should come up with a standard legal framework to address the issue.

References

Cloutier, D. M. (1991). Arizona v. Hicks: The Failure to Recognize Limited Inspections as Reasonable in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence. Colum. JL & Soc. Probs., 24, 351.

Linnemann, T. (2017). In plain view: Violence and the police image. In Routledge International Handbook of Visual Criminology (pp. 243-254). Routledge.

Ortman, W. (2016). Probable cause revisited. Stan. L. Rev., 68, 511.

Romero, E. (1987). Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 78, 763.