CRJ 325 Case Study 2: Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment, and Border Searches as They Relate to Search and Seizure

Case Study 2: Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment, and Border Searches as They Relate to Search and Seizure

CRJ 325

Plain View, Open Fields, Abandonment, and Border Searches as They Relate to Search and Seizure

The constitutional amendment that justifies Officer Jones’s actions would be one of two amendments-the abandonment doctrine and the open field doctrine. The open field doctrine is described as a warrantless search of the outside of a person’s property. It is noted that open-field doctrine does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment right. The Fourth Amendment protects the public against unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of the government (Hoverman, 2017). The abandonment doctrine shares that individuals voluntarily give their personal property to officers. The abandonment doctrine shifted from property rights16 to focus on the definition of a search after the Supreme Court provided the modern test for a search in Katz v. United States, requiring both subjective and objective reasonable expectations of privacy (Hoverman, 2017). According to the open-field doctrine, Officer Jones has a right to conduct a warrantless search of an outside area without violating the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right. According to the Abandonment doctrine, it is seen as the owner abandoning his property or “trash” in this situation.

In regards to the open field and abandonment doctrine, office Jones’s actions were considered constitutional and valid. Officer Jones rightfully search through abandoned property that was left by the defendant and picked up by a government agency. Officer Jones was fully within his rights as it relates to the abandonment doctrine. Officer Jones administered a warrantless search when he asked the trash collector to set aside any trash that was left by the defendant for an investigation. A warrant was not necessary because the property to be searched was on the outside of the premises, and it had been abandoned by the owner. Officer Jones did not have to obtain consent to search the property, and no privacy was being violated. There are many conflicting views as they relate to the open field doctrine. By contrast, under the New York State Constitution, landowners are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures in their open fields, so long as the landowner has taken steps to manifest an expectation of privacy (Mulholland, 2015).

Determining whether Officer Jones’s actions were justifiable could lead to some controversy depending on what doctrine is being considered. I believe his actions were indeed justified under the abandonment doctrine. The defendant made intentional actions of abandoning his property permanently. The defendant surrendered his property to the curb of the street and it was taken into possession by a government agency. This, in turn, allowed Officer Jones access and a legal right to search the property. Fourth Amendment protection should depend on property law, privacy torts, consumer laws, and other provisions of law generally applicable to private actors, rather than a freestanding doctrine of privacy (Baude, 2016).

References

Baude, W., & Stern, J. Y. (2016). THE POSITIVE LAW MODEL OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. Harvard Law Review, 129(7), 1821-1889.

Hoverman, A. (2017). RILEY AND ABANDONMENT: EXPANDING FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION OF CELL PHONES. Northwestern University Law Review, 111(2), 517-554.

Mulholland, L. J. (2015). POT IN MY BACKYARD: CURTILAGE CONCEPT ENDORSED BY THE QUEENS SUPREME COURT TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF MARIJUANA. Touro Law Review, 31(4), 811.