Maybe you should have read it before you put it up.
How can you tell if I read it? You obviously don't understand it.
For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, three criteria must be met:
- the officer is where he has a legal right to be,
Cops are allowed to be outside your window.
- ordinary senses must not be enhanced by advanced technology, and
- any discovery must be by chance.
Seeing something through a window that you left there is a change discovery. Have you ever read a statute or an opinion before?
In order for the officer to
seize the item, the officer must have
probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view.
The plant was left in the window. This is the position in which it was viewed. All the doctrine covers here is the initial sighting of the plant.
In
Arizona v. Hicks 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.
[1]
In
Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be
inadvertent. Previously, "inadvertent discovery" was required leading to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery." A three-prong test is now used. The test requires the officer to be "
engaged in lawful activity at the time," "the object’s incriminating character was immediately apparent and not concealed," and "
the officer had lawful access to the object and it was discovered accidentally."
[
This exact language has been used to uphold seizures of objects seen through windows. Tell you what, why don't you go Shepardize those cases and report back, 'kay?
How To Shepardize
Now, since you failed to understand the shit you were reading.
O, the sweet sweet irony.
First- Found in plain view during a lawful observation would mean he is 100% sure it is a marijuana plant and not possibly some ordinary house plant.
Wrong. Any cops don't have to be clairvoyant, these standards are based on normal human senses. Tell you what: you try and tell the trial judge that the police officer could not have been reasonably certain that it's a pot plant.
You're not allowed to make up your own law. Do you see "100%" in the statute? No. That means its a question of law for the judge, or a question of fact for the jury.
A judge would laugh at your argument, then rule against your evidentiary objections.
Second-A legal right to be would not be opening your door and entering your house, whether your door is unlocked or not.
Wrong again. Under exigent circumstances, like witnessing a crime in progress or spotting contraband, police may make entry. If the door is unlocked the bar is lowered further in terms of restraint against search and seizure. Now, different judges and jurisdictions have varying standards for this.
Since you protested so angrily I went and did a little checking. Indeed in many cases, the police would have to obtain a warrant to enter and seize the plant. However, with a plant in plain view, they can get that done
very quickly. And, again, in many cases they may just manufacture some other pretense for entry. Or, if you're a renter, they'll just ask the super or the landlord. And they
will get that permission, every time. Or they might just knock on the door and try to get you let them a few feet into the house on a pretense. Then they're in, the plant is seized and you're under arrest.
Third- Any discovery must be by chance. This says it all, the discovery would be no good because he made a unlawful entry into your house.
You just don't understand how language works in the law. It means what it says, you can't just expand upon it because you think that's what it's supposed to mean. Chance discovery without a doubt includes walking by and seeing it in your window. If you don't understand this, you may be so dense that it may not be safe for you to cut up your own food. Seek supervision.
On the other hand, when they may lawfully enter is another story. But you're kind of fucked whether they come right in or come back in 90 minutes.
Fourth- The officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband, So just because he/she says it looks like marijuana, is it really marijuana? Does it smell like marijuana? If the answer is yes, how did you obtain it to smell it? Did you enter my home UNLAWFULY. The police may not move objects to get a better view. UH! OH! Did you just open my door to look at it closer, and you also fucked up by wiping the dirt off my window to get a clear view.
You're just blowing smoke now, and making up outlandish hypotheticals. Where did the dirty window come from? This isn't
My Cousin Vinny.
I explained to you application of the law that makes these kinds of actions acceptable. Judges will accept a police officers testimony that they identified a marijuana plant by sight. Go ahead, think otherwise. You'll still be complaining about the injustice of the system and the stupidity of the judge and jury while someone's turning you into their
new girlfriend. (I can use color tags too, yay.)
And last but not least- The last paragraph is a recording from a previous trial and changes made in procedure so peoples constitutional rights are not broken. Even if it is in plain view thru a window, are you sure it is what you THINK it is?
All this tells me is that you cant read or comprehend. If I had a baggie of flower or sugar on my counter next to the window in my kitchen does that give you the right to come in my house and see what it is, HUH COP?
DONT BE A DICK RIDER, BE SMART!
Can you tell a glass of water from a glass of vodka through a window? No. Can you tell a dog from a pony? Yes.
What's sad is that one day you'll be wishing you listened.
I'm not a cop, but my entire immediate family is comprised of attorneys and law professors. Including former public defenders who used to help idiots like you survive their poor judgment and ignorant belief they knew everything. Good luck, hope you stay out of jail long enough to form a frontal lobe.
