Supreme Court Case: Harris V. United States

Although, urged to go to the back of the home to reach the accused, the marijuana was in clear view, therefore, as an officer of the court seizing it at that time was a legal obligation. Moreover, this type of seize is justifiable under the plain view doctrine and does not violate the rights given to the accused under the Fourth Amendment. Hendrix (2013) explains that “in Harris v. United States (1968), the Supreme Court established that anything a police officer sees in plain view, when the officer has a right to be where he or she is, is not the product of a search and is therefore admissible as evidence” (p.159). Subsequently, it then becomes a matter of moral judgement rather than just a noise disturbance. Hendrix (2013) indicates that …show more content…
Each one of these scenarios would render its own determinant of whether the courts decide the seizure of supplementary evidence was or was not admissible as evidence. Although, per Hendrix (2013) “…protective sweeps procedures may be initiated even if police only suspect that other search persons are present on the premises, and they may lawfully seize any evidence that is in the plain view during the search, or sweep” (p.160), it does not guarantee that that evidence will be admissible as evidence if the search is later deemed as unlawful. Accordingly, because the Fourth Amendment protects the accused against unlawful searches or searches done without probable cause, and because this additional evidence was regarded as illegal, it would not be admissible as evidence. The moral behind not allowing the evidence into court must do with making sure the courts do not infringe upon the rights of the individua. Moreover, Fischer (2016) clearly explains that “…even the most arcane of regulations has an implicit moral behind