The doctrine of Plain feel permits an officer enforcing law to confiscate an object while in the process of conducting a legally accepted pat-down search, having the fact that, its nature is directly apparent through a touching allowed by the Fourth Amendment. This doctrine is functionalthroughcases analogy; in a situation an officer discovers illegal imports through the touch sense, during a lawful search(Harr&Orthmann, 2012, p. 20).

Question 2

In the execution, the officer is justified to believe that an individual with suspicious behavior being investigated at a very close range may be armed and considered dangerous. The officer may demeanor a pat down search as a way tofind out whether an individual is dangerous. The warrant allows the officer to trail his investigation, fearless of violence. If the suspect is found dangerous, then detention becomes inevitable(Harr&Orthmann, 2012, p. 17).

Question 3

Kyllo argued against the United States use of technology, holding that thermal imagingapplianceuse, from the point of public vantage to conduct radiation monitoring of heat from anindividual’s home was considered “search” that was not within theFourth Amendment’s meaning, and required a warrant. But since this device was helpful, considering thatin this case the police officers had no warrant, Kyllo’s conviction was reversed by the Court for marijuana growing(Harr&Orthmann, 2012, p. 3).

Question4

Theexception, ofborder search is aUnited States doctrine of criminal law, which allows international borders searches and seizureand search functional equivalently,with no warrant. As a requirement, there is a need to have a balance against the interests of the sovereignty at the border with respect to theentrant’s rights of the Fourth Amendment(Harr&Orthmann, 2012, p. 17).

Question 5

Subjective and Objective Prong test is significant in expected and reasonable privacy definition.In Subject Prong, apersonneeds to have exhibited adefinite expectation of beinggovernment intrusions free (Harr&Orthmann, 2012, p. 11). In this case, courts tend to focus majorly on objective prong.In Objective Prong, a person’s privacy expectation must be the one that is reasonable and acceptable by society’s will.In this case, an example expected from society is that an individual must ensure the setting of measures to secure his or her privacy.

Question 6

Residential places expect privacy.At home, individuals tend to expect privacy. This includesbusiness premises where one hasreasonable privacy expectation, especially in his or her office, based on the fact that it’s not a public open one.Opaque packages and containers,though, in public, one has a reasonable privacy expectation. Unlessa warrant is granted to the police they have no authority unless they qualify for exception search, which is warrantless.Postal mails have privacy as it is considered to convey confidential information.Luggage gets to be protected. Therefore, inspection physically and manipulation exploratory of luggage tends to violate a person’s privacy expectation reasonably. Lastly the psychological thinking, of an individual is considered private (Harr&Orthmann, 2012, p. 25). Therefore, an individual cannot be compelled to consent to unwilling information.

Question 7

law, however, based on the consent of the personality whose property or related person is being searched (Harr&Orthmann, 2012, p. 25). However, in a situation like where there are two co-occupants, if one consents to the search and the other objects, the police can’t search the premises validly as the Supreme Court findings.

Question 8

Consent is considered to be voluntary, when an individual or person’s property is being searched, gets to be at his or her will and without objection, if the search is legal(Harr&Orthmann, 2012, p. 24).

Question 9

Lawful Arrest due to Search Incident is an expected requirement, andthis does not require warrantsissuance. If someone in this case is lawfully arrested, the area within reach may be searched by the police as a permissible and protective measure.

Exception of Plain View, this is with no requirement of a warrant to seize evidence if legitimately the police are at the location, where evidence can be viewed. In case, an officer cannot enter illegally a suspect’s backyard with theplain view exception use to confiscate an alligator, which is illegally kept and lives in the pool.

Consent is reasonable for a person, believed to have the authorityof the officer to give consent; with no warrant required for the seizure.

Stop andfrisk by Police to suspects may apply so long as reasonable suspicionof a criminal act is present (Harr&Orthmann, 2012, p. 25).

Automobile Exception may applyto highly mobileAutomotives, however, if the police have believed of crime evidence in the vehicle, a warrant may not be requisite to search vehicles.

References

Harr, J. S., Hess, M. H., &Orthmann, C. H. (2012). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System (5^th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.