lOMoARcPSD|22671317
Application essay 2, week 3
Criminal Justice Research and Writing (Liberty
University)
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
Application Essay 2
Criminal Justice -230
I do believe that these marijuana plants should and should have been taken at the time of the
event, especially given the circumstances and the fact that they were in plain view and out in the open
when the police were called to the house for a noise complaint. This would be covered by the plain view
concept according to the Harris V. United States decision from the course case in 1968. The Supreme
Court, according to the interpretation, decided that everything a police officer observes in plain view
when the officer has been granted permission to be in that area is not the result of a search and is, thus,
admissible as evidence (Hendrix, 2013). The plain view notion qualifies as a valid search under our
fourth amendment. We are required to abide by the laws put in place to safeguard both ourselves and
other people. We must follow the law and do what is proper in God's eyes as His children. According to
Fischer (2015), the more God's rule we violate, the more laws we'll require. The owner of the home
would not have violated the noise regulation, thus the police would not have been summoned, and they
would not have been detained for marijuana possession. The police would be permitted to search the
home and the person thanks to the protected sweep concept. The protective sweep doctrine contends that
even in the absence of a search warrant, law enforcement can make an arrest outside or on private
property. They may also search the entire property for any other individuals whose presence might
endanger the officers' safety or even serve to protect evidence that might be removed or destroyed
(Hendrix, 2013). The objects that were in the officer's direct line of sight rendered a warrant unnecessary,
allowing them to search the home without one. Because the marijuana plants were outdoors and in plain
sight, the officer may have inferred that there might be more marijuana inside the house or possibly other
types of substances. The owners would or could have had time to destroy the evidence that is necessary to
support the owner's prosecution had the officer not taken the action that he did. Covenants are crucial
because they force people to uphold the law and accept responsibility for their actions, whether they were
right or bad
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
(Fischer, 2015, slide 23). The extra evidence the police discovered inside the home during their search
and seizure may eventually be admissible in court if this lawful search is ultimately shown to be unlawful.
The exclusionary rule would be used to describe this. Due of the possible costs to society, this regulation
has generated a great deal of controversy (Hendrix, 2013, p 160). The exclusionary rule was used in the
cases of Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States to guarantee that evidence improperly obtained during
the unlawful search could not be used against the victim during their trial. This would be one of the key
justifications for why it is crucial for police personnel to comprehend the Bill of Rights and the
Constitution. It may be easier to guarantee that any evidence gathered during a search will be able to be
used against the criminal in court if the right processes and stages are followed. If you follow this
guideline, you may help guarantee that a criminal is held responsible for your acts. If you don't, you risk
letting a guilty person go free. As God's children, we recognize that all sins are crimes (Fischer, 2015).
We must make sure that criminals who disobey the law get the correct punishment and aren't let off the
hook due to a technicality as future police officers.
