|
Title: For an item to be lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine, it must be immediately apparent to ... Post by: Silvertxpia on Feb 24, 2018 For an item to be lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine, it must be immediately apparent to the officer that the item is subject to seizure. This means that the officer must
a. Be absolutely certain the item is contraband. b. Be reasonably certain that the item is contraband. c. Have probable cause that the item is contraband. d. Have a hunch that the item is contraband. (Question #2) In which case did the Supreme Court create the immediately apparent requirement for a valid plain view seizure? a. Arizona v. Hicks b. Horton v. California c. Minnesota v. Dickerson d. Coolidge v. New Hampshire (Question #3) The Supreme Court first permitted warrantless hot pursuit searches in: a. Chimel v. California. b. Sibron v. New York. c. Warden v. Hayden. d. Welsh v. Wisconsin. Title: For an item to be lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine, it must be immediately apparent to ... Post by: Kday on Feb 24, 2018 Content hidden
Title: For an item to be lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine, it must be immediately apparent to ... Post by: Silvertxpia on Feb 24, 2018 Makes more sense now, TY
|