Plain View/ Open Fields Case Study Essay

In Benters a reliable source told Detective J. Hastings there was an indoor marijuana growing operation at 527 Currin Road in Henderson, North Carolina, and Glenn Benters owned the property but was not living there. Benters at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596 (2014). Hastings obtained a subpoena to look at the utility use for the property and discovered that it was indicative of a marijuana growing operation. Id. Hastings and Officer Joseph Ferguson traveled to Benters’ property and saw tools used for marijuana growing outside the premises. Id. After that observation, they conducted a knock and talk on the back door. Id. at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596-597 (2014). After no answer, Ferguson walked to a building where music was playing and smelled

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

The district court’s holding that allowing ambiguity to defeat apparent authority would unreasonably burden police officers by forcing them to clarify the consenter’s authority over every container within the area they were permitted to search should be upheld as it is one that is supported by persuasive precedent from a sister circuit of this Court. See United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038, 1042 (7th Cir. 2000). In Melgar, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit uses Supreme Court precedent to support the position on ambiguous apparent authority stated above. See id. (citing Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)). The Seventh Circuit states the Supreme

Interpretation of open field is much along the lines of how plain sight is construed. If evidence of an illegal nature is out in the open, a warrant is not required to seize it. The intent of the Fourth Amendment is to safeguard an individual’s privacy from government intrusion. Open field doctrine was founded in the case

On his website, a Utah DUI Attorney, David Rosenbloom speaks about violations of the Fourth Amendment.  He states that police officers “pay little attention to the fourth amendment… [because] it is not a self-enforcing right, such as the freedom of speech” (Rosenbloom).  In short, if a citizen believes his or her rights were violated and they were illegally searched/things were seized from them, they must “ask a court to examine the case and apply the fourth

The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.

For a search and seizure to be done the officer has to obtain a warrant, also known as probable cause. By doing this the Fourth Amendment is begin followed, which reads, “The right of people to secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supports by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or thing to be seized” (Constitution.org/2009). An individual also has the right to protect their belongings against unwarranted searches by police officers. Obtaining a warrant is very important because any evidence that is illegally seized by a police officer cannot to be used in court. This is called the exclusionary rule. It was established in 1914 (Criminal Justice today/2009.Ch7). The plain view doctrine occurs when the evidence is simply in plain view. In this case no warrant is needed. In other words, anything that the officer happens to see at the crime scene can be used as evidence. Another time when a warrant is not necessary is when there is an emergency or when the officer has reasons to believe someone in the home is hurt. These situations are referred to as emergency searches.

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

1.What do McRae and Costa mean by introversion and extraversion? Is Subira introverted or extraverted? Find examples in the case to support your answer.

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

To understand this situation I decided to look up cases that reflect on their fourth amendment being violated. The case that stood out to me the most was Mapp vs. Ohio. In 1957, police officers received an anonymous tip that Mapp was hiding a wanted man because he needed to be questioned for a bombing. Then Police officers went to Mapp’s house and wanted to search her house. She then denied them entry, because she needed to see a warrant to let them in. After some hours went by, the police officers forcibly entered her home and recalled that they received a warrant. Then they proceeded with the search and found some books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. Then during her court trial she appealed her sentence, because they did not receive a valid search warrant and the police officers violated her rights. Even though they found her having possessions that were illegal, they could not hold it against her. The issues with search and seizure are usually towards the issue of violating our rights. One of the rights that we are getting violated is the right if privacy. It is the interest in being free from observation that matters to us, because they always try to know what people are saying and or doing without probable cause.