0
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.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who first stated the plain view doctrine?
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.
Which supreme court case determined that inadvertence is no longer necessary condition to ensure the legitimacy of seizure under the plain-view doctrine?
Horton v. California (1990).
What is the plain touch doctrine?
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
What was the Horton v California case?
Supreme Court case that dictated evidence be in plain veiw of an officer to be admisable unless probable cause to explore
List and explain four situations in which the US Supreme Court has ruled that a warrantless search is justified?
Warrantless searches can be performed when consent is given or there are exigent circumstances. An exigent circumstance is if the police feel that someone's safety is at risk or criminal activity is ongoing. Two other conditions are the plain view doctrine and incidental searches.
Did Harris v US set out the plain view doctrine?
yes
When can someone be searched and seized according to the fourth amendment?
When Police can "see" an illegal item they may seize it without a court's permission. This is known as "Plain View Doctrine". EXAMPLE: On a motor vehicle stop for a minor traffic infraction, if the officer spots a gun that is not concealed and is in "Plain View" then it may seized, no warrant, no court permission needed. This is but ONE example.
What did the plain Indians believed in?
Indians believe in karma doctrine , reincarnation and liberation.
Is the US Supreme Court in New York City?
AnswerYes . . . . . and no.THE Supreme Court of the United States is in Washington, DC, but in New York city, there are courts that deal in murder. These are called supreme courts. Odd to call them that, isn't it, 'cause they are more or less just plain old courts.AnswerNo. The State of New York refers to its trial courts as the "supreme court," a holdover from early in the state's history. The highest court in the state is the New York Court of Appeals, located in Albany.The US Supreme Court met for the first time at the Royal Exchange Building in New York City, on February 2, 1790, but moved to Philadelphia in 1791, then to Washington, DC, in 1800.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
The plain view doctrine still applies if officers move objects so they can see evidence otherwise hidden from view?
If they move the object for a legitimate reason, or knock it over by accident, this would be considered Plain View. But, in general, purposefully moving objects in order to find something illegal is considered a "Search", and it would not be considered "Plain View", thus the evidence would be thrown out of court. The short answer to your question would be 'no'.
When will the global caliphate be established under sharia law?
The entire question is just plain ridiculous.
An officer visits home of citizen who filed a complaint. Citizen offers coffee. While in the kitchen the officer sees marijuana plant on windowsill. Officer may legally seize plant under what doctrine?
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.
