Problem
a) In Horton vs. California (1990), the Court eliminated the inadvertence requirements of the plain view doctrine. Without the inadvertence requirement is it possible that police officers can manipulate the plain view rule? Discuss what possible ways officers might do so? Is it possible that the inadvertence rule was hampering the ability of police officers to effectively do their job? Discuss how this might be the case.
b) The Court has ruled that plain view, plain odor, and plain touch are all constitutional. In Kyllo vs. United States (2001) the Court ruled the use of a thermal imaging device on a home was presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Discuss how the first three doctrines differ from the thermal imaging device. Do you agree with the Court's decision? Why/Why not?