Police Policy and Criminal Procedure.docx - Running head:...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 8 pages.

The preview shows page 2 - 4 out of 8 pages.
Running head: POLICE POLICY AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREPolice Policy and Criminal ProcedureKayla GoodGrand Canyon University: JUS- 441April 3, 20201
POLICE POLICY AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREThe Constitution and the Bill of Rights give citizens the protection from things such asunreasonable search and seizures from the Government. The amendments, such as the FourthAmendment, help citizens such as Hicks in the case ofArizona v. Hicks. Mr. Hicks’s apartmentwas searched for a shooter or weapons after a gunshot occurred below his apartment. An officernoticed some expensive stereo equipment and moved things to receive serial numbers of thepossible stolen items (Arizona v. Hicks, 1987, p. 1). The officer had found out from thedepartment that the equipment was stolen and arrested Mr. Hicks. The unreasonable search andseizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure due to thefact the officer had to touch the items that were not in plain view. The Supreme Court recentlyissued a decision in a new case,New York v. Henderson, that reversed the original court decisioninArizona v. Hicksusing the plain view doctrine. The following paper will explain the plainview doctrine and the probable cause requirement, how the adoption of the Henderson casewould affect public policy, clarify if a policing agency disagrees with the Henderson case arethey required to follow the case or may they be allowed to provide more procedural safeguardsas inferred inArizona v. Hicks, and what happens if various interpretations of the plain viewdoctrine create significant differences between jurisdictions.Plain-View Doctrine and the Probable Cause RequirementThe plain view doctrine allows police officers to seize things on less than probable cause;this includes any item they happen to see in plain view. When a law enforcement officer observesevidence that is in plain view, it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Found evidence inplain view is not part of a search under the Fourth Amendment.“The Supreme Court found thatprobable cause was unnecessary to seize evidence not described in the warrant because theevidence was in plain view” (Ward, 2011, p. 5). For the evidence to be considered legally in2
POLICE POLICY AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREplain view three conditions have to be met, the officer must lawfully be in a position to view theevidence, the incriminating nature of the evidence must be immediately apparent, and the officermust be in a position to lawfully access the evidence (Boulton, 2012, p. 5). The officer has tohave probable cause that the object that is in plain view during a lawful search or seizure is partof criminal activities (Cornell Law School, n.d., p. 1). Sealed evidence in a container cannot be

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 8 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
CHRIS LOEFFLER
Tags
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Henderson Case

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture