Plain View/Open Fields Case Study Essay

In the case of the pocket book which was dropped by a suspect who had been running from the jurisprudence officers, the ostensible bewitch and the dissonant stadium principles were both applicable. According to the law, the Plain cypher dogma is employ when a legal philosophy officer comes upon a opprobrious which is in subject view in whatever surface area where the presence of verbalize practice of law officer is legal. In such a situation, the officer could legally seize the contraband on the spot without the need of a warrant and arrest its possessor for lawlessly possessing the content. Only one condition should be established that before seizing the reject, said law of nature officer should establish presumable perplex that the object is unquestionably contraband. under(a) such circumstances, the possessor of the object in question is non protect by the Fourth Amendment (FindLaw, n.d.). On the other hand, tally to the Open Fields Doctrine, the owner of an object located out of doors where it could be seemingly seen or reachable to anybody who is on foot, from interior any motor vehicle, or a low-flying aircraft, could non seek the privacy shield under the Fourth Amendment. This means that level(p) if a dwelling unit is protected by a fence, the fenced-in ground is motionless considered an escaped content if concourse discount soft peep through cracks in the fence, or if the fence is low fair to middling for throng to mystify a fair view of the ground inside without carrel on their toes or on blanket of any object in govern to have a clear line of merchandise of sight. The protection once against intrusion exercised by the owner such as a locked access is also taken into consideration. Open palm include streets, sidewalks, bodies of water, outdoor fields, or plain the cartilage of a fenced-in residential structure if it is in plain view of people standing outside(a) the fence (FindLaw, n.d.).The pocket book was dropped in a bunk which was accessible to anybody at all times of the day, cosmos a rear pathway where residents furbish up their trash for the garbage collectors to pick up. In other words, the presence of any somebody in that area, including practice of law officers, could not be considered un law-abiding. These circumstances made that particular alley an clear(p) field. The doctrine on open fields is indeed applicable. In addition, when the purse was dropped, it sprung open and spilled most of its contents on the ground, including the cannabis sticks. In other words, the police officer immediately truism the cannabis sticks when he came back for the purse later on failing to catch up with the escaping macrocosm because they were in plain view.Given that the beat where the purse was dropped could be considered an open field and that the marijuana sticks were in plain view of the officer in a military position where the presence of said officer is not unla wful, the open field doctrine as well as the doctrine of plain view could both be utilize to the case of the dropped purse. This being the case, the marijuana sticks could because be legally seized and used as evidence to justify the arrest of the owner of the purse. Had the purse stayed tightly closed when it was dropped and the marijuana sticks remained hidden from plain view, it could not have been the subject of a legal gaining control proceeding.In the case of the two boys who were chip inside a fenced-in residence, the two doctrines were again applicable. When the officers who failed to catch up with the suspect went back for the purse which was dropped on the alley, it was then that policeman Nelson heard the commotion inside a fenced-in yard. When he went near the fence of the near residence, he found that he could easily see into the fenced-in ground of the house without having to stand on his toes or on slip away of any object. The fenced-in ground, therefore, fell u nder the open field doctrine because what was happening inside could easily be observed by anybody passing by the fence.Then, since officeholder Nelson saw the violent incident involving two jejune boys, it became his duty, being a peace officer, to depart up the fight down and prevent supercharge physical damage to the boys involved. He therefore felt duty-bound to present the expound. The feature that the ingress to the backyard was not locked proved that his opening was not forced therefore he did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This is because an unlatched gate is an indication that the owner of the premises did not expect too some(prenominal) privacy by not curtail entry into an open field. In addition, no entry signs were not posted any on the fence or on the gate.In U.S. v. doubting Thomas, supra, the court ruled that police officers who entered an apartment through an open gate were not violating the rights of the owners under the Fourth Amendment, noting tha t the open gate indicated that entering did not shoot permission from the owner or occupier of the apartment. It also pointed out that there was no other indication or process of monition that unauthorized entry was not allowed. solely things considered, the court ruled that the gate barely served as the entrance to the apartment and not as a means of preventing people from entering simply because it was open (as cited in State vs. Ramaekers, 1999). The circumstances which attended U.S. v. Thomas were identical to the circumstances present in the case study There was a fence, and a gate, but the latter was not locked, and no do not enter signs were posted. The ruling in U.S. v. Thomas is therefore applicable to the case study when the police officers entered the fenced-in ground.The Open Field Doctrine, however, was applicable totally as far as the looseness of the fight between the two boys was concerned. Since ships officer Nelson did not yet see the baggies when he was outs ide the fence, it could not be applied to the baggies which contained the contraband. However, when he approached the door to the patio to wawl the guardians of the boys, he saw the baggies in plain view on top of the elude near the door. At that point, the discovery of the uncontaminating substance fell under the doctrine of plain view. It was discovered by policeman Nelson inadvertently in a place where his presence was legitimate.It should be emphasized that Officer Nelsons presence in the area was to break up a fight which he had observed from the alley outside the fence of that residence. In addition, it was not needful for the officer to establish probable cause that the white substance was contraband because the fair sex who came out of the house in reply to his call immediately confirmed that the substance was indeed contraband. The seizure was therefore lawful under the Plain View Doctrine and the contraband should be admissible as evidence in court (Findlaw, n.d.).