Analyzes of the validity and Constitutionality of officer’s Jones’ actions.
Constitutionally, the officers’ actions were legal and valid. As a responsible police officer, Jones took the initiative to collect vital information from a prudent individual that established he was indeed engaged in illegal possession of drugs. Regarding the constitutionality and validity of Jones actions, he wanted to amass congruent factual information within his knowledge from a prudent source that conveyed the actions of the neighbor committed a felony. According to the “Standard of Proof; Probable cause, 2015” that states that the party in conflict need to produce quality evidence that meets the standard of persuasiveness ( Bevans, 2014) . Since Officer Jones was the accuser, he needed to have a burden of proof for the allegations he had raised against the neighbor. Hence, when the officer received claims that the defendant was engaged in the illegal business of selling drugs, this validated his actions of gathering information about the neighbor as lawful. Also, the 4th Amendment stipulates that “a police officer may not seize a person or individual property lest the officer has a belief rising to the level of probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime ( Bevans, 2014) . Therefore, the search actions by the officer Jones were valid and constitutional.
Discussion on whether actions Officer Jones were justified under the Doctrines of Plain view, Abandonment, Open Fields, or Border Searches
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Officer Jones actions under the Doctrine of Abandonment
The abandonment doctrine justifies the action of Officer Jones. In this regard, the defendant had deliberately and permanently abandoned the property after he had placed it outside to be collected by the trash collecting and dumping company. Therefore, it gave officer jones the legal right to access his property without any form of warrant. He gave the authority to the sanitation worker to collect evidence instead of doing it all by himself. This is because the trash was no longer in possession of the defendant. In most occasions, search warrants are only issued when an officer needs to access and search private property ( Bevans, 2014).
Officer Jones actions under the Doctrine of Open Fields
The Open Fields doctrine stipulates that material or items that are in open fields do not require protection against seizures and searches. Hence, they can be accessed, searched and used without any form of consent from the owner ( Del & Hemmens, 2017 ). The Open Fields doctrine is usually availed to officers when searching without any warrant under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, it means that Officer Jones actions were justifiable under this doctrine since the defendant placed the items outside in an open area granting Officer Jones the right to search it without a warrant.
Officer Jones actions under the Doctrine of Plain View
The plain view principle asserts that a police officer has the authority to seize materials that are within his or her sight without necessarily obtaining a search warrant. So long as the officer can comfortably view illegal items, he or she can seize it and later present it as evidence. In this regard, this doctrine justifies the actions of Officer Jones ( Del & Hemmens, 2017 ). This was after he confirmed and ascertained that the defendant was in possession of illegal drugs after viewing them in the garbage. Therefore, he did not require any search warrant before taking the necessary actions.
Officer Jones actions under the Doctrine of Border Searches
The officer used this doctrine to determine the probable cause of the illegal activities of selling drugs within the residence. The doctrine provides that the officer did not need consent when accessing the materials possessed by the defendant ( Del & Hemmens, 2017 ). Furthermore, Officer Jones action did not violate or contravene the rights of the defendant. Also to note is that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless search under special circumstances such as the above action of Jones. Similarly, the same amendment allows the police to stop and frisk a person if he/she has a reasonable cause.
References
Bevans, N. R. (2014). Criminal law and procedure for the paralegal . Cengage Learning.
Del, C. R., & Hemmens, C. (2017). Criminal procedure: Law and practice . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
