Leadership Institute Branch Legal Training Section Search & Seizure Plain View Roll Call Training 2014-1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply
Advertisements

1 Where does the Exclusionary Rule Not Apply? Civil cases and proceedings Civil cases and proceedings Evidence obtained in a private search by a private.
Teaching American History: Moot Courts and Constitutional Concepts.
Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional 11th Edition
Leadership Institute Branch Legal Training Section United States Supreme Court Roll Call Training
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007 Chapter 5 Arrests and Searches Without Warrants.
Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional 11 th Edition John N. Ferdico Henry F. Fradella Christopher Totten Prepared by Tony Wolusky Criminal.
Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional 11 th Edition John N. Ferdico Henry F. Fradella Christopher Totten Prepared by Tony Wolusky The.
Plain View Doctrine 1.Item is positioned easily in an officer’s sight. 2.Officer is legally in a position to notice. 3.The discovery of the item is inadvertent.
Chapter 15 Search and Seizure.
Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional 11 th Edition John N. Ferdico Henry F. Fradella Christopher Totten Prepared by Tony Wolusky Open.
Criminal Justice Process: the investigation – Chp 12 Arrest – Suspect taken into custody 4 th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their.
1 Chapter 14 Obtaining Physical and Other Evidence.
Leadership Institute Branch Legal Training Section SB HEROIN 2015 Kentucky General Assembly Roll Call Training
Police and the Rule of Law Chapter 7 In Your Textbook John Massey Criminal Justice.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CLASS FOUR. Today’s Topics Search Incident to Arrest Pretext Arrest Plain View and Plain Touch Automobile Searches Exigent Circumstances.
Legal Aspects of Criminal Investigation: Arrest, Search and Seizure
4th Amendment.
+ Protecting Individual Liberties Section 1 Chapter 14.
The 4th & 5th Amendments Search & Seizure Search & Seizure Rights Against Self Incrimination Rights Against Self Incrimination.
Featured Programs Awards Publications Products Catalog LRE Network Contact Print This | Page Feedback | ShareThisPage Feedback Criminal Law Rules on Search.
Chapter Nine – Searches and Seizures Not Fully Protected by the Fourth Amendment: Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment, and Border Searches Rolando V.
Review of Exceptions to Warrant Rule Vehicles Open fields Anything with consent Abandoned property Inventory Plain view.
Leadership Institute Branch Legal Training Section What is the Castle Doctrine? Use of Force Roll Call Training
Leadership Institute Branch Legal Training Section New Statutes 2014 Roll Call Training
Policing Legal Aspects Go to this Site. Due Process Most Due Process requirements are in either: –evidence and investigation –arrest –interrogation All.
Plain View Doctrine  Allows a police officer to seize evidence found in “plain view” during a search without a warrant. Also, when officers are carrying.
Chapter Four Other Search & Seizure Issues All Images © Microsoft Corporation Written by Karmel Tanner May 2010.
Search & Seizure Question : Privacy vs. Need for Law and Order.
1 Chapter 14 Obtaining Physical and other Evidence Obtaining Physical and other Evidence.
LS100 Eight Skills Prof. Jane McElligott.  A Miranda Warning is a statement police must read to a suspect prior to interrogation of the suspect once.
Police and the Constitution: The Rules of Law Enforcement.
CJ © 2011 Cengage Learning Chapter 7 Police and the Constitution: The Rules of Law Enforcement.
The Fourth Amendment and the Home By Laura Zajac.
Searches and the Bill of Rights. General concerns regarding crime scene searches and seizure of evidence Was the search itself legal? Was the search itself.
“ Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Criminal Evidence Chapter Six: Warrantless Arrests and Searches This multimedia product and its contents are protected.
Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply
THEFT BURGLARY THEFT VIOLENT CRIME THEFT CAR THEFT THEFT BURGLARY THEFT.
EMLYN A. RICKETTS, ESQ. Criminal Procedure: The Investigative Phase.
You remember the 4th Amendment, don’t you?  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable.
FOURTH AMENDMENT Search and Seizure. Fourth Amendment “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable.
CJ305 Criminal Evidence Welcome to our Seminar!!! (We will begin shortly) Tonight – Unit 7 (Chapter 9 – The Exclusionary Rule)
Fourth Amendment And Probable Cause. By the end of this presentation you should be able to understand; ◦Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ◦How.
4TH AMENDMENT  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall.
1 Book Cover Here Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 7 Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest, Hot Pursuit Criminal Justice Procedure.
Criminal Investigation: Laws of Arrest, Search and Seizure Chapter 12 Law and Government.
CJ I / Critical Thinking 3/13/16 Why do you think it is important that law enforcement agencies have limited authority? What do you think are the key benefits.
Leadership Institute Branch Legal Training Section Driving by Foreign Nationals in Kentucky Roll Call Training
Is there a state action? (i.e. search by police, not private party) Is the search conducted by a state or federal actor? 4 th amendment doesn’t apply to.
1 Book Cover Here Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 6 Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: Plain View, Open Fields, Abandoned.
Unit 3 The Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment To The United States Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
1 Book Cover Here Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 5 Automobile Searches: exceptions to the warrant requirement Criminal Justice.
1 Book Cover Here Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved Chapter 3 Arrests Criminal Justice Procedure 8 th Edition.
SEARCH & SEIZURE.
Evidence Collection at the Crime Scene and Constitutional Law
The University of Adelaide, School of Computer Science
Chapter 8 Police and Constitutional Law
AGENDA Today: Search and seizure
The Fourth Amendment and the Home
What Happens After Jardines?
Fourth Amendment And Probable Cause.
Search and Seizure Concepts
Thinker The first ten amendments are also known as:
Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice, 2d.
Bell Work (Think of your response and be prepared to share)
CRJ325 Criminal Procedure
4th Amendment SEARCH AND SEIZURE.
Authority of the Police
Search & Seizure The act of taking possession of this property.
Criminal Procedure: Theory and Practice, 2d.
Presentation transcript:

Leadership Institute Branch Legal Training Section Search & Seizure Plain View Roll Call Training

Objective At the end of this review, the viewer will be able to: Describe the three elements of Plain View RCT

Plain View The Plain View doctrine is an often used – and sometimes misunderstood – concept. RCT

Plain View The general rule under the Fourth Amendment is that any search without a warrant into an area where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy will be presumed to be an unreasonable search. However … RCT

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Where does an individual have that reasonable expectation of privacy? It is mostly common sense – homes, vehicles (to an extent), personal belongings and communications, etc. RCT

Although plain “view” implies that this doctrine only applies to something observed by sight, case law supports the idea that one’s other senses may be used as well – as such we have plain feel or touch, plain hearing and plain smell. RCT

Three Elements Plain View requires three elements: 1.Officer must be lawfully present to see (or perceive) the contraband (illegal items) or evidence 2.Incriminating nature of evidence must be “immediately apparent” 3.In order to seize, officer must have a lawful right of access to where the evidence is located RCT

First Element The first element of plain view emphasizes that the officers must be in a lawful location when they observe the evidence or contraband. RCT

For example … An officer might be lawfully standing on the front porch, doing a knock and talk. When the door is opened, the officer sees contraband through the open door. Note: that does not mean, however, that the officer is automatically able to enter and seize it. RCT

Second Element The evidence or contraband must be “immediately apparent” as such. This does not require an absolute certainty. However, the more effort required for an officer to realize the item is evidence or contraband, the less likely it is that the Court will agree that it was “immediately apparent.” RCT

For example … If the officer has to physically manipulate the item in a pocket, by squeezing it between fingers) or pick it up and sniff it, it is more likely the Court would decide that it was not “immediately apparent.” RCT

Exigency The intrusion into a place where the contraband may be observed or seized may be supported by exigent circumstances, such as an articulable and legitimate concern of destruction of evidence, danger to life, need to render medical aid, hot pursuit, etc. Officer’s actual intent is irrelevant, in other words, the Court does not care what the officer is thinking, only about what the officer does. RCT

For Example …. An officer may have reason to suspect that drugs will be found in a particular location (subjective intent). The officer may approach the house and make contact in a lawful manner, such as a knock-and- talk, to determine if they are able to observe the evidence during that time. RCT

However … The law enforcement officers must not have created the exigency! In the Sixth Circuit, “some showing of deliberate conduct on the part of the police evincing an effort intentionally to avoid the warrant requirement” may cause the Court to question it. RCT

During a warrant execution Even when an officer is searching an area pursuant to a warrant, plain view is a valuable tool. For example, if during a search for drugs, an officer comes across something not listed on the warrant, but is immediately recognizable as contraband, the item may properly be seized. RCT

For example, if officers are searching the home of a convicted felon for drugs, and spot a firearm, the firearm may be seized. Because a convicted felon may not possess a firearm, the item is immediately recognizable as a contraband item. RCT

Third Element The third element for Plain View is that the item to be seized must be accessible to the officer, in a place where the officer is lawfully permitted to be. RCT

For example, if an officer spots a marijuana plant located inside a home, from a legal vantage point outside, and clearly recognizes that it is, in fact, a marijuana plant, they have met two of the three prongs. However, this does not mean they may immediately enter and seize the plant. RCT

Curtilage The protected area will extend, as well, to the area immediately outside the structure of a home – in effect, the yard. That area is called the curtilage and it enjoys the same protections as the home itself. RCT

Instead, officers will need to either get a search warrant, enter under consent or enter under an exigency, such as a reasonable and articulable fear that the evidence will be destroyed. Just the presence of the plant is not enough to argue that it may be destroyed, if, for example, the residents do not realize the plant has been spotted. RCT

Summary In this brief roll call training, we have discussed the three critical elements of plain view. 1.The officer is in a place where they are lawfully permitted to be 2.The officer immediately recognizes the items as contraband or evidence 3.If they wish to seize the item, the item is in a place the officer is lawfully permitted to be. RCT

Questions? If you have any questions concerning this presentation, please feel free to contact the Legal Training Section in one of the following ways: Website: Phone: RCT

Case References Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983). Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) United States v. Chambers, 395 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2005) Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2002). Michigan v. Fisher, 130 S.Ct. 546 (2009) U.S. v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) Hunt v. Com., 304 S.W.3d 15 (Ky. 2009) Chavies v. Com., 354 S.W.3d 103 (Ky. 2011) RCT