According to the case, provisions of the fourth amendment would guide Officer Jones’s actions as it protects Americans from unreasonable government searches and seizures. However, Supreme Court understanding of “unreasonable” has been fluid over the years. Consequently, some searches necessitate warrants while others do not (United States Congress,2016). A reasonable expectation of privacy is the distinguishing element between the two categories of searches. For example, when trash is still in the home or within the confines of private property, it is protected from a warrantless search. However, once such refuse is situated on the curb for collection, it becomes subject to a warrantless search (Mason & Stephenson, 2015).
In this case, Officer Jones obtained the defendant’s refuse from the neighborhood’s garbage collection personnel. Previously, such personnel retrieved the defendant’s garbage bags from the curb, where the defendant had situated them for collection. Jones searched through the refuse and discovered evidence of narcotics, which he used to secure a search warrant for the defendant’s home. Fourth amendment privileges do not extend to garbage situated on the street for collection making the warrantless search of the defendant’s garbage bags constitutionally acceptable (Rossum & Tarr,2016). Furthermore, the evidence collected provided probable cause: criminal activity. Such a development necessitated a search warrant for the defendant’s residence. The execution of the warrant produced evidence corroborating criminal activity leading to the defendant’s arrest and subsequent. Generally, Officer Jones’s actions were within the constitutional provisions to the extent that they did not violate provisions of the fourth amendment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The plain view doctrine
This doctrine observes that officers can execute warrantless seizures of property that is within such an officer’s plain view provided the officer has the right to obtain such a view. Moreover, in circumstances where the officer needs a search warrant or probable cause, the officer can use his legal observations to obtain the necessary authority for searching and seizing property. However, this doctrine is limited by a probable cause requirement; such an officer must have probable cause to be certain that items in plain view are contraband before they can search or seize them (United States Congress,2016). The facts of the case do not explicitly reveal probable cause. Therefore, it is a challenge to establish how Officer Jones obtained probable cause to search the defendant’s garbage bags despite their being in plain view.
The open fields doctrine
Such a doctrine observes that fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures preclude unoccupied lands with the exception of land which immediately surrounds a home. Such land may hold reasonable expectations of privacy (Phillips,2016). According to the case, the defendant situated the garbage bags on the curb for collection by a third party. The location of the defendant’s refuse on the curb is consistent with this doctrine to the extent that refuse was not situated in an area with reasonable expectations of privacy: the curb.
The abandonment doctrine
With regards to this case, abandoning property entails the relinquishing of rights, title, claim and possession to such property without conferring them to another individual. Normal disposal of garbage on the curb is consistent with relinquishing rights and claims to such items. Therefore, Officer Jones’s actions complied with the abandonment doctrine.
Border searches
Searches at border points are carried out in accordance with the sovereign right of any nation to protect itself by stopping and examining persons, property crossing into the country. Such searches do not meet the investigatory requirements as they are conducted without warrants and probable cause(Phillips,2016). According to the case, there were no instances of border searches or situations that might have necessitated the same.
References
Mason, A. T., & Stephenson, G. (2015). American constitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases . Routledge.
Phillips, R. C. (2016). The Fourth Amendment and Search & Seizure: An update. Retrieved from http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdates/docs/search-2016.pdf . Retrieved on May 11, 2017.
Rossum, R. A., & Tarr, G. A. (2016). American Constitutional Law, Volume II: The Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments . Westview Press.
United States Congress. (2016). Fourth amendment: search and seizure. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-REV-2016-10-5.pdf . Retrieved on May 11, 2017.
