Plain View and Open Fields Searches (From Briefs of 100 Leading Cases in Law Enforcement, P 109-118, 1991, Rolando V. del Carmen, Jeffery T. Walker -- See NCJ-126275)

• NCJ Number: 126286
• Author(s): R V del Carmen; J T Walker
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 10 pages
• Sale Source: Anderson Publishing Co
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Supreme Court decisions concerning plain view and open fields searches are analyzed for their significance to law enforcement.

Abstract

As stated in Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983), items must be "immediately recognizable" as subject to seizure if they are to fall under the "plain view" doctrine, but, "certain knowledge" that incriminating evidence is involved is not necessary. Also, probable cause to believe that items being searched are contraband or evidence of criminal activity is required for the items to be searched under the "plain view" doctrine, according to Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987). In the case, Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170 (1984), the Court found that because open fields are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, office, or commercial structure would not be and because fences or "No Trespassing" signs do not effectively bar the public from viewing open fields, the expectation of privacy by an owner of an open field does not exist. In addition, the Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not violated by the naked-eye aerial observation by the police of a suspect's backyard, which is a part of the curtilage, as stated in California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986).