Officers respond to a shooting call in an apartment. When they arrive they enter the apartment to look for victims, suspects, and weapons. Once they enter they find a person with a minor gun shot wound and a pistol. The victim is not a resident of the apartment and they are the only person present (other then the officers). They claim they had an argument with the resident who shot them and then fled the scene. The apartment is squalid with the exception of a really nice television. The officers read the serial number on the television without moving it. The television comes back stolen. Is this search valid under the 4th Amendment? Why?
2007-09-17 20:05:50 · 12 answers · asked by El Scott 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
wfsgymwear. This question is loosely based on a real incident. If you've ever hung out with the Police especially when we are bored and waiting for the EMTs to cart off a wounded person you know we start to look at things.
Shooting scene. The question states the bad guy left. The place would be crawling with officers. BOLOs would be put out. CID would be called. Crime scene tape. Neighbors standing in the hallway. You get the picture.
2007-09-17 21:41:41 · update #1
This question was a little misleading. In order for officers to search or seize items in plain view they must have probable cause to do so. Not just reasonable suspicion (the nice TV in a squalid apartment would only come to reasonable suspicion). In Arizona v. Hicks (a case similiar to this situation) the courts ruled that simply reading the serial numbers without moving the items was not a search or seizure and therefore not a violation of the 4th Amendment. A really good answer to this question would be along the lines of: this is not a 4th Amendment violation because it is not a search or seizure. A lot of people took the plain view bait in this question. Don't feel bad it took the Supreme Court to see the bigger picture.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=480&invol=321
2007-09-23 21:27:53 · update #2
As long as they didn't have to move the TV to see the serial number the search should be good. They were lawfully on the scene and the number was in plain view and aroused suspicion by not matching the rest of the apartment.
2007-09-17 20:15:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would say that no, it is not valid. According to a previous answer that provided the Wiki link to their article on "plain view doctrine", there is a three-prong test. This search easily accomodates 2 of the three prong's, but the one that states "the object’s incriminating character was immediately apparent and not concealed" would be a problem.
A nice TV in a squalid apartment is not necessarily incriminating ... most people have good TV's, even if their couches and beds are falling apart lol.
Of course, all they had to do was get a search warrant to search for evidence to the whereabouts of the suspect, and that would lead to the "discovery" of the stolen TV.
2007-09-18 00:55:53 · answer #2 · answered by Lisbeth 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is legal. The officers were called to the scene. My question is...After a shooting who the heck looks at a TV? Was the scene secure? Was the suspect in custody? Was it confirmed that the suspect would not return with the weapon? This makes no sense that someone would run a TV on the scene with more pressing issues going on. Did you or we get the whole story?
2007-09-17 21:10:49 · answer #3 · answered by wfsgymwear 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the search was valid. 1. The failure to stop was cause to affect a traffic stop. The fact that they do not pull everyone over that does this does not invalidate the cause to execute this traffic stop. 2. The courts have already ruled that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to smells coming from their vehicle. The K-9 unit was allowed to walk around the vehicle and alerted to the presence of drugs from outside the vehicle which gives the officer probable cause to further search the vehicle.
2016-05-17 11:02:30 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Officers have legal standing to be in the apartment, property is in plain view. The property can be seized, however common practice is to secure the location and obtain a search warrant, which can often yield other stuff.
2007-09-17 20:45:24 · answer #5 · answered by trueblue3167 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is valid.
The police had a lawful reason to be there. So long as they didnt have to disturb the property to get the serial number, they can run the number simply under plain view doctrine.
2007-09-18 05:04:23 · answer #6 · answered by sixtymm 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's legal. They had a reason to enter the apartment, and the TV was in plain sight.
2007-09-17 20:26:01 · answer #7 · answered by DOOM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd say it is. They already had "reasonable cause" to enter the apartment. Anything "criminal" that they find as a result of entering in is now part of a crime scene. Again "reasonable cause."
2007-09-17 20:09:46 · answer #8 · answered by i sharpen 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey, do your own homework! It's valid. As long as they had a search warrant exception (i.e. emergency) to be in the apartment, the serial number is in plain view.
2007-09-23 17:19:42 · answer #9 · answered by FelonyBoy 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Im wondering if this would fall under the plain view doctrine?
2007-09-17 20:28:30 · answer #10 · answered by shipis 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋