The search and seizure was not seen as a violation of the Fourth Amendment because the contents were placed in a location that was not barred from public entry.
Question details: Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your peers’ posts (as well as any comments made by your instructor) in a substantive manner and provide information or concepts that they may not have considered. Each response should have a minimum of 100 words. Support your position by using information from the week’s readings. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion forum. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until Day 7 and respond with robust dialogue to anyone who replies to your initial post. jenny LThe Court of Appeal chose to uphold the district court’s denial of the suppression motion and imposition of sentence (United States v. Hall, 1995). The search and seizure was not seen as a violation of the Fourth Amendment because the contents were placed in a location that was not barred from public entry. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects. However, if an item is available in plain view, it is not subjected to protection under the Fourth Amendment. If the dumpster had been on private property instead of commercial property, it would still not have been protected under the Fourth Amendment because the dumpster itself would have been in plain sight to those outside the area. “In order for persons to preserve Fourth Amendment protection in the area immediately surrounding the residence, they must not conduct an activity or leave an object in the plain view of those outside the area” (United States v. Hall, 1995).If I were an executive at Bet-Air, I would recommend adding gates and signs to indicate that the road and areas leading to the dumpster are private property with no trespassing allowed. To incur the protection under the Fourth Amendment, occupants of a commercial building, in contrast, must take the additional precaution of affirmatively barring the public from the area (United States v. Hall, 1995).
References: United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995).
Answer preview to the search and seizure was not seen as a violation of the Fourth Amendment because the contents were placed in a location that was not barred from public entry.
APA
150 words
