Texas V. Brown Case

1013 Words5 Pages
A police officer in plain clothes was patrolling an area and came across two men standing outside of Macy’s looking suspicious. He saw the two men separately walk back and forth a total of six (6) times each as if they were searching for something in particular in the Macy’s store display window. The men would walk away from the store, meet up at a corner and confer for a short while. They would then meet back at the store resume viewing the window again. Based on these actions, the police officer suspected the two men were actually casing the store for a robbery. Viewing their actions, he decided to approach the two men. The officer identified himself as the police and asked the men for their names, and at that point they mumbled a few…show more content…
The plain view doctrine is not limited to visual observations, police officers are allowed to use their five human senses to detect evidence of a crime: plain smell, plain hearing, plain touch, plain taste and plain view. In the case, Texas v. Brown [103 S. Ct. 1535 (1983)], it states in order for the plain view doctrine to work first, the police officer must lawfully make an “initial intrusion” or otherwise properly be in a position from which he can view a particular area. This was accomplished in the scenario above because the police officer was patrolling an area and spotted the two men doing suspicious movements. The police officer did not rashly and hurriedly observe the two men. He took his time to verify that his suspicions were valid conclusions for the actions he witnessed. Next, in the case, Texas v. Brown [103 S. Ct. 1535 (1983)], it states in order for the plain view doctrine to work second, the officer must discover incriminating evidence “inadvertently,” which is to say, he may not “know in advance the location of …evidence and intend to seize it,” relying on the plain view doctrine only as a pretext In this situation, The police officer had approached the men on the fact that he thought that the two men were about to hold a stick-up at Macy’s. The police officer then performs a pat-down on the man, not knowing there would be incriminating evidence in his pocket. Last, in the case, Texas v. Brown [103 S. Ct. 1535 (1983)], it states that in order for the plain view doctrine to be effective, it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. Using his plain touch (pat-down to determine whether the suspect is armed or not) on the outside of the man’s clothing, the officer felt a gun in his pocket. In this scenario, it was immediately apparent to the police
Open Document