1. the Plain View Doctrine (PVD) The police officers lawfully obtained evidence from Archer’s dining room under the PVD because the officer was in a place where he had a right to be and saw accessible property that was recognized as the candelabra. The Supreme Court has held that even if there is no warrant, obtaining evidence is always reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, if (1) the police entrance to the place to be searched is valid and (2) the PVD prong test is satisfied: if an officer is in a place where he has a right to be and sees accessible property that is recognized as contraband, an officer may seize the evidence. Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 467. Moreover, the modern trend of the PVD is lenient towards the compliance to the three prongs
…show more content…
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987). In Hicks, the officers, responding to a shooting, moved a stereo to view and recorded the serial numbers. Id. The Supreme Court held that recording the numbers was allowed, however, what was not reasonable was the action of moving the stereo in order to make the serial numbers in plain view. Id. Another case that that determined the object is not contraband, is Nicholas v. State. In this case, the officers noticed photographic negatives in plain view, however the officers had no knowledge or suspicion that these negatives evidenced an illegality until the officer turned on the lights, held the negatives up to the light, and after looking closely he determined that the negatives contained evidence of a crime. Nicholas v. State, 502 S.W.2d 169, 257, (Tex. Crim. …show more content…
(C.R. 12, Or. ¶ 14). Even if Detective Gillette would have not known right away that the object underneath the blanket was the candelabra, Detective Friggis’ touch of the irregular protrusions, with twisted branches and thorns, would have sufficed to identify the covered candelabra, since he was at the dining room when the touch happened and the touch of the unique protrusions of the mesquite candelabra made it immediately apparent to officer Friggis. (C.R. 12, Or. ¶ 14). Finally, the officers rightfully decided that obtaining the stolen candelabra was a “major gain in effective law enforcement” since they had not found any other stolen art pieces and the candelabra is a clue to find the rest of the art stolen valued at $100, 000. (C.R. 13, Or. ¶
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987). In Hicks, the officers, responding to a shooting, moved a stereo to view and recorded the serial numbers. Id. The Supreme Court held that recording the numbers was allowed, however, what was not reasonable was the action of moving the stereo in order to make the serial numbers in plain view. Id. Another case that that determined the object is not contraband, is Nicholas v. State. In this case, the officers noticed photographic negatives in plain view, however the officers had no knowledge or suspicion that these negatives evidenced an illegality until the officer turned on the lights, held the negatives up to the light, and after looking closely he determined that the negatives contained evidence of a crime. Nicholas v. State, 502 S.W.2d 169, 257, (Tex. Crim. …show more content…
(C.R. 12, Or. ¶ 14). Even if Detective Gillette would have not known right away that the object underneath the blanket was the candelabra, Detective Friggis’ touch of the irregular protrusions, with twisted branches and thorns, would have sufficed to identify the covered candelabra, since he was at the dining room when the touch happened and the touch of the unique protrusions of the mesquite candelabra made it immediately apparent to officer Friggis. (C.R. 12, Or. ¶ 14). Finally, the officers rightfully decided that obtaining the stolen candelabra was a “major gain in effective law enforcement” since they had not found any other stolen art pieces and the candelabra is a clue to find the rest of the art stolen valued at $100, 000. (C.R. 13, Or. ¶