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 out a search pursuant to a warrant, they can seize items they “inadvertently” see in plain view if they have probable cause to believe it is evidence of a crime, even if it is not related to the crime under investigation.  Example: Police officer stops a person for a minor traffic violation and when the officer approaches the driver’s door, the officer sees a bag of marijuana on the back seat, in “plain view,” giving the officer "probable cause" to search the car.

 In a “plain smell” case, the police officer detects some odor that provides the officer with probable cause to believe an offense has been or is being committed.  Smell of marijuana coming from inside a vehicle or the odor of alcohol on the breath of the operator of a vehicle.

 United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) – U.S. Supreme Court held that a canine sniff by drug-detection dogs to sniff luggage in a public area such as an airport is not a “search” under the 4 th Amendment because of the limited intrusiveness.  Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) – U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a canine sniff can be used on lawfully stopped vehicle, even without reasonable suspicion that drugs are present in the vehicle.

 Allows police to keep pursuing a fleeing suspect, even into his own house or into some other person’s house, without having to obtain a search warrant, in order to prevent the suspect’s escape or the risk that the suspect may harm someone.  “Hot Pursuit” is the chase by police of a suspect in an attempt to capture him; so it’s an immediate continuous pursuit of a suspect who is trying to escape.

 If police obtain evidence unconstitutionally (for example, by means of an illegal search and seizure or a coerced confession), then the illegally obtained evidence and anything that derives from that evidence (the fruit) is not admissible in court.  Evidence derived from unconstitutionally obtained evidence is called “fruit of the poisonous tree” – the initial illegally obtained evidence is the “poisonous tree,” and any evidence derived from this poisonous tree is “fruit of the poisonous tree.”  The theory is that the tree (original illegal evidence) is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it (the secondary “fruit of the poisonous tree” evidence).

 Police, thinking that the defendant is a drug dealer, but without bothering to get enough evidence to obtain a warrant and having no exigent circumstances present, illegally enter the suspect’s home without a warrant; once inside the house, police find a list that appears to be defendant’s drug buyers with their addresses and phone numbers. Police go to the alleged drug buyers and arrest them. The drug buyers charged with drug possession can successfully argue that the list is “tainted evidence” and each of their arrests is “fruit of the poisonous tree.”  Police arrest Robberetta for armed robbery. Police fail to read Robberetta her Miranda Rights and she confesses that she did commit the robbery; after much coercion, she draws a map to a spot in the state park where she buried the money. The map was obtained illegally by police due to their failure to read her Miranda Warnings, so her confession that she did the robbery is tainted evidence and the map is fruit of that unconstitutional coercion without Miranda Warnings and is therefore “fruit of the poisonous tree” and will be excluded into evidence.

 Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine extends the exclusionary rule so that evidence is excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an unconstitutional search, interrogation, or arrest.  The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, like the exclusionary rule, has the purpose of deterring police from violating a person’s constitutional rights – if police know they will be unable to use the evidence obtained illegally, police won’t take part in such conduct because their case will be gone against the suspect – if the evidence is kept out of court, there won’t be too much of a case left!

 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) – U.S. Supreme Court held that a police officer may briefly detain a person for a limited interrogation in the absence of "probable cause," so long as the standard of "reasonable suspicion" has been satisfied (which is an easier standard to meet than “probable cause”).  To justify a pat down frisk, a police officer must have a reasonable fear that he or she “is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual.”  The “stop” is the brief detention by police to question a suspect and the “frisk” can be done if police have reason to believe that the suspect has a weapon and poses a danger.