The plain view doctrine allows law enforcement the ability to seize evidence that can be used in court without first having to obtain a warrant (Hall, 2014). There are five elements that make up the requirements for the plain view doctrine to be lawful (Hall, 2014).
1. “the officer must lawfully be in an area
2. from which the object to be seized is in plain view, and
3. the officer does in fact see the item;
4. there is probable cause to believe the object is connected to a crime, and
5. the officer has a right to access the object itself” (Hall, 2014, p.424).
The first element states the officer must be lawfully present whether that is a public or private area (Hall, 2014). As long as the officer was legally able to be present in the area, the plain view doctrine will apply (Hall, 2014). However, if an officer is lawfully present in a public area and sees evidence of a crime in a private area, the plain view doctrine can still apply as long as there was justification for not obtaining a warrant (Hall, 2014). If, for example, the officer could articulate that the evidence would have been destroyed, the officer could seize the evidence under the plain view doctrine (Hall, 2014). …show more content…
Officers cannot touch objects and move them to gain a better visual advantage (Hall, 2014). This terminates the plain view doctrine (Hall, 2014). This ties into the third element, which basically states the officer must see the item, even if it’s by accident (Hall, 2014). The fourth element, which requires probable cause, also requires the evidence to be “immediately apparent” as evidence of a crime (Hall, 2014). The last element is important for the warrantless seizure to be legal. The officer must have been legally able to obtain the evidence (Hall,
1. “the officer must lawfully be in an area
2. from which the object to be seized is in plain view, and
3. the officer does in fact see the item;
4. there is probable cause to believe the object is connected to a crime, and
5. the officer has a right to access the object itself” (Hall, 2014, p.424).
The first element states the officer must be lawfully present whether that is a public or private area (Hall, 2014). As long as the officer was legally able to be present in the area, the plain view doctrine will apply (Hall, 2014). However, if an officer is lawfully present in a public area and sees evidence of a crime in a private area, the plain view doctrine can still apply as long as there was justification for not obtaining a warrant (Hall, 2014). If, for example, the officer could articulate that the evidence would have been destroyed, the officer could seize the evidence under the plain view doctrine (Hall, 2014). …show more content…
Officers cannot touch objects and move them to gain a better visual advantage (Hall, 2014). This terminates the plain view doctrine (Hall, 2014). This ties into the third element, which basically states the officer must see the item, even if it’s by accident (Hall, 2014). The fourth element, which requires probable cause, also requires the evidence to be “immediately apparent” as evidence of a crime (Hall, 2014). The last element is important for the warrantless seizure to be legal. The officer must have been legally able to obtain the evidence (Hall,