Discussion on the legality of “plain view” and “open fields” searches
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the “Plain view” search is legal. The search allows the police officers to conduct searches and seizures without necessarily having a search warrant. In”plain view” search the officers can see instrumentalities of the criminal activity in plain view or plain sight. Plain view search is applicable only when the officer has contraband or evidence that cannot be manipulated (Romero, 1988, p. 20). For example, if one observes controlled substance such as marijuana then the material is said to be in a plain view and the illegal substance can be seized and used as evidence.
“Open field” search is closely related to plain sight search. In open fields, people have no privacy. In Hester v. U.S., the 4th Amendment does not protect "open fields" searches. The police can conduct "open fields" search in wooded areas, open water, vacant lots, and pastures (United States, In Thomas, In Eig, United States, & Library of Congress, 2013, p. 14). According to the court ruling, open fields applies to the fenced and posted areas. Therefore, an individual should not demand privacy especially for the activities performed in the fields.
The court ruling in Arizona v. Hicks
The Court ruled the way it to resolve the confusion that can arise in smaller courts. The decision defines the degree of justification required to conduct a search warrant. The case of Arizona v. Hicks was about a legal warrantless entry to the apartments after a gunshot that injured a man downstairs. In the case court ruled plain sight seizure to be constitutional (Romero, 1988, p. 26). Therefore, the police must have a search warrant before the intrusion. The Supreme Court ruling allowed intrusive seizures to a lesser degree. The Hicks Court's decision appears irreconcilable; the police officer is not authorized to employ flexible responses that base on intuition and experience in plain view scenario.
Personally, I feel that this ruling limits the work of police in conducting search warrants. The law enforcement officers should be given the authority to do warrantless searches without necessarily having the probable cause.
Changes in Supreme Court’s decision about vehicle seizures in Carroll v. U.S (1925), and in U.S. v. Ross (1982)
U.S. v Ross is a search case that was argued in America’s Supreme Court in 1982; the Court extended motor vehicle exception to 4th amendment requirement to closed automobiles. The Supreme Court maintained that it was lawful for traffic police to stop and search all vehicles including the containers found in those cars. According to United States v. Ross of 1982, the police can conduct a seizure of vehicles without necessarily issuing a search warrant (Bloom, 2003, p. 24). Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, the appeals court ruled that searching and opening the portable and closed containers without a seizure warrant was against the 4th amendment. However, the law allowed vehicles to be searched without the warrant. The Supreme Court legalized warrantless seizure of containers found in the process of conducting vehicle searching.
T he Supreme Court changed its ruling in 1925. In Carroll v. U.S., the Court ruled that the police can perform a search and seizure of automobiles without any warrant, but on condition that they should have probable cause that justifies their suspicion that the vehicle has contraband. The ruling was termed as "automobile exception" to the 4th amendment’s seizure requirement. Ideally, the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Carroll v. U.S. is two way. The "practical mobility" of the vehicles makes it impractical for the officers to get a search warrant from the magistrate (Bloom, 2003, p. 32). The time taken by the police officer to obtain a search warrant is enough to allow the automobile owner to escape the jurisdiction. Ideally, vehicles were assumed to have lower privacy expectation than containers and houses because cars provide visible contents, especially via the windows. Carroll v. U.S. case allowed police officers to illegal seizure liquor that was hidden in containers.
Limitations that the Supreme Court has placed on police officers when searching closed containers in Automobiles.
Basing on the court cases, Carroll v. U.S. and U.S. v. Ross, the Supreme Court barred law enforcement officers from conducting arbitrary warrantless searches on closed containers unless they had probable cause. Therefore, police officers cannot access the contents of the containers that are inside vehicles without probable cause to seizure and search the car ("Searches and Seizures: Constitutional Law: Evidence," 1921, p. 18). According to the Supreme Court, it was unconstitutional to conduct a warrantless search of containers without probable cause. Similarly, according to the law, the officers could conduct searches in containers if they had a warrant from the magistrate. Notably, the privacy expectations of the containers have limited the police officers from conducting searches without the warrant.
Personally, I do not agree with the limitations placed by the Court regarding the search and seizure of closed containers because individuals can smuggle illegal substances like marijuana into the country without being noticed. Ideally, police officers should be allowed to conduct warrantless searches of containers to prevent smuggling of illegal materials into the nation.
References
Bloom, R. M. (2003). Searches, seizures, and warrants: A reference guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Romero, E. (1988). Fourth Amendment: Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 78(4), 763. doi:10.2307/1143407
Searches and Seizures: Constitutional Law: Evidence. (1921). Michigan Law Review, 19(3), 355. doi:10.2307/1278205
United States, In Thomas, K. R., In Eig, L. M., United States, & Library of Congress. (2013). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and interpretation : analysis of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2012.
