There are three supreme court cases that brought about the plain touch doctrine being added along with plain sight.
Terry v Ohio only allowed officers to frisk for weapons.
Minnesota v. Dickerson is the case in which United States Supreme Court unanimously adopted the plain touch doctrine which allows officers to seize evidence recognized through the sense of touch during a lawful patdown without a warrant.
and finally Coolidge v. New Hampshire which held plain touch seizures constitutional and free from the exclusionary rule when three conditions are met:
1. a lawful patdown has occurred under Terry v. Ohio
2. the character of the item as contraband or evidence of a crime is immediately apparent (plain touch),
3. the officer has a lawful right of access to the item.
You can easily find all this information here: http://law.jrank.org
Also, I realize Wikipedia isn't the most secure research tool, but come on man put a little effort into it next time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine
Weapons.
The plain view doctrine was first articulated by the United States Supreme Court in the 1967 case of Coolidge v. New Hampshire. The doctrine allows law enforcement officers to seize evidence without a warrant if it is in plain view and the officer has a lawful right of access to the object.
yes
Indians believe in karma doctrine , reincarnation and liberation.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire in 1977 was the first ruling on the plain view doctrine. It has since been updated in 1987 in the ruling Arizona v. Hicks and again in 1990 with Horton v. California.
you would have to be able to. then it wouldn't be portable.
It depends on the state (assuming this is in America). Many states allow personal consumption of marijuana and most of those allow cultivation of a limited number of own consumption plants. In those states the plant would not be seized.
Richard Mayo has written: 'A plain scripture-argument against Dr. Clark's doctrine concerning the ever-blessed Trinity'
The evidence must be lying in the open, the officer must be there legally and as the result of a prior valid intrusion, officer must ACTUALLY observe the item being seized, must have probable cause to believe the item is subjet to seizure, there must not be any unreasonable intrusion on any one's reasonable expectation of privacy, discovery of item need not be inadvertent. ADDED: I have no quibble with the above answer -except- that it describes the plain SIGHT rule. I am not familiar with the "plain TOUCH" doctrine. If the questioner is asking about contraband discovered by a "pat-down" frisk during an 'investigative stop' (when the officer's pat down discloses contraband not initially involved in his reason for the stop) then the answer becomes entirely different. The contraband discovered in this manner CAN be seized and used as a basis for a charge against the defendant. It limits the purpose of the search that discovers evidence to looking for weapons.
Horton v. California (1990).
Because there plain and dry.Vegetables allways need a touch up such as broccoli which needs cheese.
The Samsung Genio Touch comes in the colours Pink, Black, Orange, Yellow & White. When you buy the phone it has two covers, Plain colour & the colour that you picked with circles on it.