The Essence of the Plain View Doctrine - Essay Example

"A plurality of the Supreme Court has ruled that the plain view doctrine is subject to the limitation that (1) a law enforcement officer [emphasis added] must lawfully make an initial intrusion or otherwise properly be in a position from which he can view a particular area, (2) the discovery of evidence in plain view must be inadvertent, and (3) it must be immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them.In the case of Horton v. California2, the requirement of "inadvertent discovery" was eliminated to balance the need for effective law enforcement and civil rights.

(Hall, 1991)Applying these elements to the case at bar, the two possible incidents where the "plain view" can be applied are first, the incident with the handbag, and second, the incident regarding the baggies on top of the patio table. In both incidents, the intrusion was lawful - chasing a thief who had stolen a handbag and breaking up a fight are functions of an officer in the performance of his duties. In the handbag incident, the illegality of the marijuana was immediately apparent as the policemen, and certainly, anyone in the know could clearly recognize the prohibited substance.

With respect to the baggies, the policeman had probable cause to believe that the substance was illegal and therefore had the duty to make further investigations, particularly given the reaction of the woman in the nightgown. Even if the requirement of inadvertence has been removed, it could be said that both discoveries were inadvertent. There was no need to inquire any further than what is clearly discernible in plain view. It is submitted, therefore, that the requirements for the "plain view" doctrine have been complied with.

With respect to the "open fields" doctrine, it is submitted that this doctrine is inapplicable. The "open fields doctrine" states that open fields are not covered by the fourth amendment as "open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance."3 Relevant to this discussion is the distinction made by the Supreme Court between "open fields" and "curtilage". The latter is the outdoor area immediately surrounding the home.

(Goldberger, 1984) An area is a curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."4 In this case, the backyard is considered cartilage and therefore, the open fields doctrine does not apply. It is the "plain view doctrine" which is more applicable, considering that the policemen were correct in entering the premises to break up the fight.