Imagine that the Supreme Court has issued a decision that reverses Arizona v. Hicks (1987), and the Supreme Court under a new case (fictional case), entitled New York v. Henderson (2016), now holds that the plain view doctrine does allow police officers to seize on less than probable cause, any item they happen to see that is in “plain view.”
Write an essay of 750-1,000 words that addresses the following:
Explain the “plain-view” doctrine and the probable cause requirement with respect to this doctrine.
Explain how the adoption of the Henderson case would affect public policy.
If a policing agency disagrees with the Henderson case, are they required to follow the case or may they be allowed to provide more procedural safe guards as inferred in Arizona v. Hicks? Provide examples.
What happens if various interpretations of the “plain view” doctrine create significant differences between jurisdictions?
Be sure to cite three to five relevant scholarly sources in support of your content. Use only sources found at the GCU Library, government websites/legal case sites or those provided in Topic Materials.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.
Police Policy & Criminal Procedure
Plain-view doctrine is a rationale that rules that objects that fall in the plain view of an officer who is in the right to be in that position to have the view are subject to seizure without a warrant. The same rationale works if the officer needs a warrant or probable cause to search and seize; his lawful observation is used for those grounds. The probable cause requirement limits the plain view doctrine. The probable cause requirement requires that officers have probable cause to believe that items in their plain view are contraband before they may search and seize them. Plain view doctrine still protects their people’s rights, houses against unreasonable searches and seizures, which are not violated. In the rationale, no warrants are issued, but the probable cause supported by oath and affirmation is allowed, which mainly describes the place to be searched and what items to be seized.
In Henderson V. United States, Armarcion Henderson experienced a plain error rule in which, in the trial, the judge illegally imposed a far longer sentence on him than is required by the law. In the same context, the universal agreement adopted was improperly enhanced, and Henderson could not obtain relief from the court in the case before the Supreme Court on November 28, 2012. Henderson faced a sentence of 33 to 41 months under advisory sentencing guidelines. There was no objection from the government and the defense counsel on the sentencing range. The Supreme Court held that a court could not impose or lengthen a prison sentence in order to enable an offender to complete a treatment program and promote rehabilitation. The fifth circuit determined that there was no precedent on the issue of imposing a longer sentence at the time; there was no plain error and affirmed the court’s decision on the case. This affects public policy in a way that the court would have the freedom to apply rules in the way they wish if there was no precedent on the public policy issue.
Suppose a policing agency disagrees with the determination of the Henderson case. In that case, they must provide more procedural safeguards as inferred in the Case of Arizona V. Hicks. The procedural safeguards evaluate the actions of the policeman within the purview of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the plain view doctrine did not render the search reason as per the Fourth Amendment. The policeman’s actions directed to the stereo equipment were not reasonable as it was unrelated to the justification of entering the apartment. The procedures require that a warrantless search must be strictly circumscribed by exigencies which justify the initiation.
Various interpretations of the plain view doctrine create significant differences between jurisdictions, which has led to the significant modification of the original principles for providing a viable basis for warrantless seizures. Courts have modified the nature and extent of the plain view doctrine through the misinterpretation of the prior valid intrusion requirement that supports an interest in privacy not based only upon an open view. The courts have failed to clarify the discovery before the intrusion that satisfies the inadvertency requirement where the good faith omission from a warrant is sufficient. The doctrine will remain uncertain on the plain view doctrine’s scope if the prior valid intrusion requirement is not honored and the parameters of inadvertence not drawn clearly.
Gibson, C. W. (2020). Reexamining the Government’s Interest in Border Searches of Digital Devices. U. Chi. L. Rev. Online, 1.
Mayer, M. (2019). The Proper Future of the Plain Smell Doctrine in Arizona: Concerns after State v. Sisco. Ariz. St. LJ, 51, 799.
Kumar, Z. (2020). On Kansas v. Glover and the Issue of Reasonable Suspicion. Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y Sidebar, 15, 29.
Grossman, S. (2016). Whither Reasonable Suspicion: The Supreme Court’s Functional Abandonment of the Reasonableness Requirement for Fourth Amendment Seizures. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 53, 349.
Ormerod, P. C., & Trautman, L. J. (2017). A Descriptive Analysis of the Fourth Amendment and the Third-Party Doctrine in the Digital Age. Alb. LJ Sci. & Tech., 28, 73.