Plain View/Open Fields Case Study Essay

In the case of the purse which was dropped by a suspect who had been running from the police officers, the plain view and the open field doctrines were both applicable. According to the law, the Plain View Doctrine is applied when a police officer comes upon a contraband which is in â€Å"plain view† in any area where the presence of said police officer is legal. In such a situation, the officer could legally seize the contraband on the spot without the need of a warrant and arrest its owner for illegally possessing the substance. Only one condition should be established: that before seizing the object, said police officer should establish â€Å"probable cause† that the object is unquestionably contraband. Under such circumstances, the owner of the object in question is not protected by the Fourth Amendment (FindLaw, n.d.).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   On the other hand, according to the Open Fields Doctrine, the owner of an object located out of doors where it could be plainly seen or accessible to anybody who is on foot, from inside any motor vehicle, or a low-flying aircraft, could not seek the privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment. This means that even if a dwelling unit is protected by a fence, the fenced-in ground is still considered an â€Å"open field† if people can easily peep through cracks in the fence, or if the fence is low enough for people to have a clear view of the ground inside without standing on their toes or on top of any object in order to have a clear line of sight. The protection against intrusion exercised by the owner such as a locked gate is also taken into consideration. Open fields include streets, sidewalks, bodies of water, outdoor fields, or even the â€Å"cartilage† of a fenced-in residential building if it is in plain view of people standing outside the fence (FindLaw, n.d.). The purse was dropped in a place which was accessible to anybody at all times of the day, being a back alley where residents deposit their trash for the garbage collectors to pick up. In other words, the presence of any person in that area, including police officers, could not be considered unlawful. These circumstances made that particular alley an open field. The doctrine on open fields is therefore applicable. In addition, when the purse was dropped, it sprung open and spilled most of its contents on the ground, including the marijuana sticks. In other words, the police officer immediately saw the marijuana sticks when he came back for the purse after failing to catch up with the escaping man because they were in â€Å"plain view.† Given that the place where the purse was dropped could be considered an open field and that the marijuana sticks were in plain view of the officer in a place where the presence of said officer is not unlawful, the open field doctrine as well as the doctrine of plain view could both be applied to the case of the dropped purse. This being the case, the marijuana sticks could therefore be legally seized and used as evidence to justify the arrest of the owner of the purse. Had the purse stayed tightly closed when it was dropped and the marijuana sticks remained hidden from plain view, it could not have been the subject of a legal seizure proceeding. In the case of the two boys who were fighting inside a fenced-in residence, the two doctrines were again applicable. When the officers who failed to catch up with the suspect went back for the purse which was dropped on the alley, it was then that Officer Nelson heard the commotion inside a fenced-in yard. When he went near the fence of the nearest residence, he found that he could easily see into the fenced-in ground of the house without having to stand on his toes or on top of any object. The fenced-in ground, therefore, fell under the open field doctrine because what was happening inside could easily be observed by anybody passing by the fence. Then, since Officer Nelson saw the violent incident involving two teenage boys, it became his duty, being a peace officer, to break up the fight and prevent further physical damage to the boys involved. He therefore felt duty-bound to enter the premises. The fact that the gate to the backyard was not locked proved that his entry was not forced therefore he did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This is because an unlocked gate is an indication that the owner of the premises did not expect too much privacy by not restricting entry into an â€Å"open field.† In addition, â€Å"no entry† signs were not posted either on the fence or on the gate. In U.S. v. Thomas, supra, the court ruled that police officers who entered an apartment through an open gate were not violating the rights of the owners under the Fourth Amendment, noting that the open gate indicated that entering did not require permission from the owner or occupant of the apartment. It also pointed out that there was no other indication or warning that unauthorized entry was not allowed. All things considered, the court ruled that the gate only served as the entrance to the apartment and not as a means of preventing people from entering simply because it was open (as cited in State vs. Ramaekers, 1999). The circumstances which attended U.S. v. Thomas were identical to the circumstances present in the case study: There was a fence, and a gate, but the latter was not locked, and no â€Å"do not enter† signs were posted. The ruling in U.S. v. Thomas is therefore applicable to the case study when the police officers entered the fenced-in ground. The Open Field Doctrine, however, was applicable only as far as the breakup of the fight between the two boys was concerned. Since Officer Nelson did not yet see the baggies when he was outside the fence, it could not be applied to the baggies which contained the contraband. However, when he approached the door to the patio to call the guardians of the boys, he saw the baggies in â€Å"plain view† on top of the table near the door. At that point, the discovery of the white substance fell under the doctrine of plain view. It was discovered by Officer Nelson â€Å"inadvertently† in a place where his presence was legitimate. It should be emphasized that Officer Nelson’s presence in the area was to break up a fight which he had observed from the alley outside the fence of that residence. In addition, it was not necessary for the officer to establish probable cause that the white substance was contraband because the woman who came out of the house in response to his call immediately confirmed that the substance was indeed contraband. The seizure was therefore lawful under the Plain View Doctrine and the contraband should be admissible as evidence in court (Findlaw, n.d.).