Plain View/ Open Fields Case Study Essay

Words: 916
Pages: 4

Roel R. Garcia
Plain View / Open Fields Case Study
Axia College University of Phoenix
Scott Smith
September 14, 2008

Today a high percentage of the arrests done by law enforcement are from seized evidence that was in plain view and does not come under the Fourth Amendment. The plain view doctrine states that items that are within the sight of a police 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 (Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice 2004). In other instances police can also seize evidence that is in open fields. The open fields doctrine holds that items in open fields are not protected
…show more content…
The officer immediately seized the baggies containing the white powdery substance and arrested the woman for drug possession. The officers immediately recognize the items as to being drugs without the result of further examination and seized the evidence. The officer had probable cause to believe that the baggies contained narcotics and the seizure was justified under plain view (Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 [1983]). All three of the requirements were met therefore the seizure was legal. In this scenario the open field doctrine does not apply because residential yards and fenced areas are not included in the doctrine.
Once the officers secured the backyard scene where they recovered the baggies of drugs and arrested a woman, one of the officers continued to the location of the dropped purse. As he retrieved the purse he recognized marihuana cigarettes among its spilled contents. The marihuana cigarettes were in plain view of the officer and covered the three requirements of the plain view doctrine. He had sight of the evidence; he was legally in the place from where the evidence was recovered, and recognized the evidence as to being marihuana (Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 [1983]). Not only plain view applies, but also open fields doctrine may apply in this scenario because the evidence seize was recovered in a public place which is not associated with the sanctity of a man’s home, and the privacies of