Exam 10: The Plain View Doctrine

A) prior valid intrusion
B) inadvertent discovery
C) probable cause item subject to seizure
D) no unreasonable intrusion on privacy

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) there are no conceptual distinction between binoculars and flashlights.
B) binoculars allow people to observe what could not be observed without their use.
C) flashlights require batteries to become operational.
D) binoculars allow areas to be viewed that may not otherwise have been viewable without an impermissible intrusion into a protected zone of privacy.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) The officer must be in a position in which he or she has a legal right to be.
B) The officer must not unreasonably intrude on any person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
C) The discovery of the item by the officer must be inadvertent.
D) The incriminating character of the item must be immediately apparent to the officer.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) The item must be plainly visible.
B) The observation of the item must be inadvertent.
C) The officer must be specially trained in recognition of contraband.
D) The officer must be lawfully present in the place where the sighting is made.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) are lawful because he saw only what any curious passerby could see.
B) are unlawful within the plain view doctrine because he invaded privacy.
C) are unlawful within the plain view doctrine because he used extraordinary means.
D) are lawful because no seizure immediately occurred.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Under the plain view doctrine, law enforcement officers can seize evidence without a warrant if it is immediately apparent to the officer that the items are evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. To justify a seizure of evidence under the plain view doctrine, officers must satisfy three requirements: 1. Lawful Presence: The officer must be lawfully present at the location where the evidence is seen. This means that the officer is in a place where they have a legal right to be, such as being in a public place, executing a search warrant at a specific location, or being inside a home after being invited by the resident. 2. Lawful Access: The officer must have a lawful right of access to the object. The evidence must be in plain view from the officer's lawful vantage point, without the officer having to move objects, enter a space without permission, or otherwise manipulate the environment to gain a view of the evidence. 3. Immediately Apparent: It must be immediately apparent to the officer that the items in plain view are evidence of a crime or are contraband. The officer must have probable cause to associate the item with criminal activity without conducting a further search or obtaining additional information. If these three requirements are met, the seizure of the evidence is considered lawful under the plain view doctrine, and the evidence can typically be used in court. However, if any of these requirements are not met, the seizure may be challenged as unconstitutional, and the evidence may be excluded from trial under the exclusionary rule.

A) reasonable suspicion
B) absolute certainty
C) clear and convincing evidence
D) probable cause

Correct Answer

verified

D

Correct Answer

verified

"murder sc...

View Answer

Show Answer

A) prior valid intrusion
B) incriminating nature immediately apparent
C) probable cause item subject to seizure
D) inadvertent discovery

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

The plain view doctrine is a principle in criminal law that allows law enforcement officers to seize evidence of a crime without a search warrant if that evidence is in plain view during a lawful observation. This doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. For the plain view doctrine to apply, three conditions must typically be met: 1. The officer must be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed. 2. The officer must have a lawful right of access to the object itself. 3. The incriminating character of the object must be immediately apparent. If these conditions are satisfied, the officer can seize the object without a warrant. The rationale behind this doctrine is that if an officer is lawfully in a position to observe something and it is immediately clear that the item is connected with criminal activity, then the officer can take action to secure the evidence without needing to obtain a warrant first. The plain view doctrine is often applied when officers are in a location for a legitimate reason, such as executing a search warrant for a different item, conducting a lawful traffic stop, or being invited into a home, and they inadvertently come across evidence of a crime in plain sight. It is important to note that the doctrine does not permit officers to enter a space without a warrant or probable cause in hopes of finding evidence in plain view.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they had a right to fly there.
B) do not fall within plain view because the nature of the plants was not immediately apparent.
C) fall within plain view because they did not seize the marijuana until after making an arrest.
D) do not fall within plain view because they invaded the suspect's privacy.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

The plain touch or plain feel doctrine r...

View Answer

Show Answer

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Three mechanical aids or electrical devi...

View Answer

Show Answer

A) lawful under plain view because there was no search.
B) lawful under plain view because there was no search or seizure.
C) unlawful under plain view because there was a search.
D) unlawful under plain view because there was a seizure.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) current jurisprudence favors law enforcement over the rights of citizens.
B) the doctrine does not allow for intrusion into privacy and thus protects citizen's Fourth Amendment rights.
C) the Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements are met by the doctrine.
D) the burden of proof is on the police and prosecutor.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) the suspect did not intrude into anyone else's reasonable expectation of privacy.
B) the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which he could perceive the evidence.
C) the officer did not intrude into anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy.
D) the suspect intruded into the victim's privacy thus justifying the officer's intrusion into the suspect's privacy.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer