Question

Using the three criteria for the plain view doctrine, provide one scenario involving illegal drugs in the trunk of a car that properly utilizes this doctrine and one with similar facts that fails to meet the test.

Answer 1

Answer.

The plain view doctrine allows a police officer to take any evidence of a crime or contraband that is found in plain sight during a normal round of investigation . This doctrine marks an exception to the need for a warrant to collect that evidence. For example, the plain view doctrine is used often by the police to search the boot of a car If they suspect the presence of use of illegal substances such as drugs, weapons, etc. in visible perspective while searching the vehicle. Thus, according to the criteria for plain view sight, the officers in charge can seize needles and bags of heroin that may be laid out on the passenger seat during a routine traffic stop. In this case, the plain view doctrine would permit certain seizures to be conducted without a warrant. However, if the suspected evidentiary objects were not in plain sight and were rather hidden under a piece of cloth and were not visible to the naked eye without lifting the cloth then, the objects would not be covered under the plain sight doctrine and the police officers would have to produce a warrant before seizing them as evidence.