Ch. 6 Criminal Procedure

Most times an officer needs a warrant to search and/or seize items, places, and people. There are a few exceptions or instances when this policy does not come into play. One instance of when an officer does not need a warrant, a written document permitting the officer to search or seize something, is when contraband in is plain sight of the officer. The Plain Sight (plain view) doctrine is restricted to items that the police officer can see from their vantage point. The officer must also have probable cause to suspect that the item or items are illegal, contraband. There also used to be a restriction that required the observations to be inadvertent or accidentally seen not purposefully seen. That restriction was overturned in the case Horton v. California.

There is an interesting case where there was Plain Sight Negligence. It is the illinoisinjury link. It details the events that lead to a stolen vehicle and the subsequent injury that was resulted from the stealing of the vehicle. Two friends allowed an acquaintance to spend the night at their house. This acquaintance stole the keys to their car and went on a joy ride. The joy ride ended in the injury of an innocent bystander. The plaintiff claims that the two friends are liable for the damages done by the acquaintance since it was reasonably foreseeable that the acquaintance would steal the car. The friends knew that their acquaintance had no permanent place of residence and was a crack cocaine addict. The plaintiff argues that the knowledge of the behavior of the acquaintance should have been a signal to the friends that something like the stealing of the car could happen. The friends oppose this view. The friends counter this view saying that it was not foreseeable that the acquaintance would steal the car because they did not leave the keys to the car in plain sight. The keys were hidden in a lunch box that was not left out in the open. In the end the court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the friends are liable.

I remember when I was in high school and they would have us practice our lock down drill. We would lock the doors and put strips of paper over the windows in the doors so no one could see into the classrooms. Every time they had practice lock down drills I could hear the administrators checking lockers with drug sniffing dogs. I think they used the drills as a way to keep the students from interfering or observing the search for drugs in the lockers. I suppose the students don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy because the lockers belong to the school and not the students. The school doesn't need warrants to search the lockers because it is an exception to the warrant clause. This particular incidence would fall under the Needs of Law Enforcement exception. The public school is an agent of the state and must act in the best interests of the students under the law. I have never thought of my teachers as state agents but it makes sense in the whole scheme of things.

http://www.illinoisinjurylawyerblog.com/2009/03/case_law_update_plain_sight_ne.html
There are some notes on the plain view doctrine in this link below.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/04.html