The plain-view doctrine
Under the plain-view doctrine police officers who stop vehicles for traffic violations can search the car if there is probable cause. If there are items that the police officer notice are contraband or illegal substances. “Thus, the significant elements in any plain view doctrine seizure are: (1) the officer must already have lawful presence in an area protected by the 4th Amendment. In a house, that would mean that the officer must have entered with a warrant, exigency or consent. (2) The officer must observe an item in plain view. (3) The officer must immediately recognize the item as evidence or contraband without making a further intrusion. It should be recognized that officers routinely make plain view observations, but that does not necessarily mean that the item may be seized unless the officer has met the elements above.” (Ryan) If the vehicle has illegal contraband then, the police officer can search the car. However, if the police officer does not see any contraband and suspects the suspect is hiding something, then the police must ask for permission to search the car. The police can ask the driver to step out of the car and frisk them for carrying a weapon. If drugs are found in the car, then the police can search the driver for more drug paraphernal. In Brendlin v. California (2007), the Supreme Court held that all passengers inside a vehicle during a traffic stop are “seized” just as the driver is. A logical outgrowth of this ruling followed in Arizona v. Johnson (2009), when the Court determined that an officer may frisk a passenger in a car that has been lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, if the officer has developed reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous. (Hess pg 111)
Ryan, Jack.Plain View Doctrine. http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2043-plain-view-doctrine-
Hess, Karen.(2017).Criminal Investigation.Boston, MA.Cengage Learning.
Answer preview to the plain-view doctrine
APA
362 words
