Plain View Doctrine: the plain view doctrine is the rule for the police. If any police officer comes across anything in the time of acting lawfully, and the thing the police officer saw, can be used as evidence. The police officer can search that thing. It can use as evidence in the criminal trial. Even if the police officer does not have the search warrant, he can investigate the thing. This is called the Plain View Doctrine.
In the US, the plain view doctrine is used for criminal cases. It is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. It allows the officer to seize the evidence without the warrant. The officer can go through any evidence in the time of the investigation. He or she can take that evidence without the investigation warrant. The officer is allowed to seize the thing though the object is not described in the warrant. It is vital for the law because it gives the right to the police to seize the object if it is suspected as evidence of the criminal case. The object should be lawfully present in the area which is protected by the Fourth Amendment.
In a dissent writing, Justice William J. Brennan wrote, and he argued that the protective sweep represented the kind of invasive redundant which the fourth amendment was created to stop. He also did the argument that the opinion of the majority has the limit. The limit is to the chance and timeliness of the protective search s not enough for the prevention of the police to abuse someone with the unwarranted search. In the US, it is an essential part of the investigation and law enforcement. It is helpful to enforce the law of the Supreme Court to assert and expand, and it is called Terry Search. In the present, the police officers are allowed to do the protective search. They are allowed to do a protective search to search for any specific thing. The officer can do anything that is for the sake of his or her safety while present in operation. Justice Brennan warned the Supreme court about this. He said that it is very dangerous for the citizen. The expansion of Terry Search can violate the security of the citizen if there are unwarranted search and seize there in society.
I would go with the opinion of Justice Brennan. I also agree with the opinion that the unwarranted search in society is not good for the citizen of society.
Curtilage is the area that is directly surrounded by someone’s house. This part is treated as part of the house. The court’s recognition is that the cartilage is also the part of an entity’s house, as the front door can’t be the end of one’s territory. The court thinks that the cartilage area can also be troublesome.
The open field is not a protected area. It is not protected the place as per the Fourth Amendment. The police officers are allowed to intrude as such area of someone’s house. The police officers will not be liable if there is any trespass in the open field area in the time of the investigation. The person who does the trespass will be liable for this. The officer is allowed to do the lawful duty in the open field area.
In criminal law, Curtilage and Open Field are two very important concepts. The Curtilage is the directly surrounded are of someone’s house. It is very important for the case because the court thinks that the front door it not only the main concern of the suspect — the Open field area under police surveillance. The officer has the authorities to search in an open field without the search warrant. The law permits the officer. This place is important in a criminal case because the convicted person can access these areas to hide the evidence of the case.
Stop From an arrest: The police officers have the right to stop someone if they suspect that person to be responsible for any crime. The slandered policy is to stop someone, ask questions to him and charge him for more information. It is also called a detainment. If someone is being stopped, then he is being detained. The main difference between the arrest and detention is, in detention a person is free to end the conversation and can walk away. But in the case of arrest, the person is taken with the officer to the police station.
A frisk from a search: A frisk from a search means the officer can touch the suspected person to search if there is any weapon. If a person is stopped and detained, they can ask him a various question. Frisking is an area which gray. It is because, in the time of frisking, the officer does not have the verifiable suspicion. The Supreme Court has confirmed the right for the officers to search the suspected person for the search of any weapon. If the officer is wrong in the case of frisking, the person can take the proper step against the officer for breaching the civil rights of the person.
In U.S. v. Leon, the Supreme Court created a good-faith exception to the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Under Leon, evidence seized in good faith under a search warrant is admissible at trial, even though it is later determined that probable cause was lacking. Good faith exception is the exception of the exclusionary rule. It barriers the use at trial of the proof obtained under an illegal search or seize. If the office is a reasonable person and have good faith belief, and they were taking action according to law, they will have a proper search warrant. Also, the suspected object is finally defective in a legal way; it is said that the object is admissible underneath the good faith exception rule. Arizona V. Evans is one of the models of the Good Faith Exception.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits police officers from conducting any unreasonable search. If the police officer does anything that violates the Fourth Amendment to find the evidence for a criminal case, it is called Exclusionary rule.
The Exclusionary rule gives the increment in the finding of the evidence. This rule allows any evidence to be introduced at the time of trial. With this rule, the officer can search for any suspected person if he or she is suspected of being guilty. However, if the suspected person is not guilty, that person can take the legal action against that officer for personal harassment.
If I prefer any other doctrine, that is the “Fruit of a poisonous tree” doctrine. In this doctrine, the court can exclude from trial not only proof. But, also the other proofs that is resultant from an unlawful search. If the defendant is arrested for robbery and later confesses the crime. If the law says that the arrest was not legal, then the law is bound to free the person, though he confesses his crime. This situation is called as the law is suffering from the poison of its own tree. Here the laws give the bind to its own hand.