Question

what portion of the Constitution does the "plain view" doctrine concern? How that portion of the Constitution affect public policy regarding criminal law?

Answer 1

Plan View
The correct of the men and women to be relaxed of their persons, residences, papers, and effects, in opposition to unreasonable searches and seizures, shall now not be violated, and no Warrants shall predicament however upon possible intent, supported via Oath or affirmation, and specially describing the location to be searched, and the individuals or matters to be seized.
plain View-.slightly identical in motive is the rule of thumb that objects falling within the simple view of an officer who has a proper to be within the position to have that view are discipline to seizure with no warrant or that, if the officer needs a warrant or probable purpose to search and take hold of, his lawful commentary will furnish grounds therefor. The undeniable view doctrine is confined, nonetheless, with the aid of the possible purpose requirement: officers need to have possible motive to think that items in undeniable view are contraband before they may search or grab them.

The courtroom has analogized from the plain view doctrine to maintain that, once officers have lawfully discovered contraband, the owner privateness interest in that object is misplaced, and officers may reseal a container, hint its path by way of a managed delivery, and seize and reopen the container with no warrant.348

Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 (1982) (officer lawfully in dorm room may just grasp marijuana seeds and pipe in open view); usa v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (plain view justification for officers to enter home to arrest after watching defendant standing in open doorway); Harris v. Usa, 390 U.S. 234 (1968) (officer who opened door of impounded automobile and saw evidence in plain view safely seized it); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963) (officers entered premises with out warrant to make arrest on the grounds that of exigent situations seized evidence in plain sight). Cf. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464 seventy three (1971), and identity. At 510 (Justice White dissenting). Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (gadgets seized in simple view for the period of protecting sweep of house incident to arrest); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (contraband on automobile seat in plain view of officer who had stopped auto and asked for driver license); new york v. Classification, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) (evidence visible whilst looking for auto identification quantity). There is no requirement that the discovery of evidence in undeniable view need to be inadvertent. See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (despite amendment particularity requirement, officers with warrant to search for proceeds of robbery may grasp weapons of theft in simple view).

Steele v. U.S., 267 U.S. 498 (1925) (officers found contraband in view by means of open doorway; had probable reason to procure warrant). Cf. Taylor v. America, 286 U.S. 1 (1932) (officers located contraband in undeniable view in garage, warrantless entry to grab was once unconstitutional).

Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (police lawfully in apartment to examine shooting lacked possible intent to investigate cross-check high priced stereo equipment to record serial numbers).

Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 (1983) (locker customs retailers had opened, and which was once due to this fact traced). Accord, u.S. V. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (inspection of package opened through personal freight provider who notified drug retailers).