must equal to 1200 words with in text citation and at least 3 sources

1. What is the plain view doctrine?  Provide an example of when it might apply.

2. Do you agree with Justice Brennan that the protective sweep goes beyond the Terry v. Ohio decision?  Explain your position.

3. What is curtilage? Open fields? Why are these concepts important in criminal law?

4. Distinguish a stop from an arrest; a frisk from a search.

5. In United States v. Leon, the Supreme Court created a good-faith exception to the probable cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Under Leon, evidence seized in good faith pursuant to a search warrant is admissible at trial, even though it is later determined that probable cause was lacking. Should this exception be extended to warrantless searches when an officer has a good-faith belief that probable cause exists?

6. Do you believe that the exclusionary rule is required under the Fourth Amendment? Can you think of any alternatives to the rule?

Reply to josh  75 words listed below

Terry v Ohio was a case that established that an officer of the law could search for weapons, without a warrant or probable cause, only a belief that the person may be armed and dangerous (Casebriefs, n.d.). This was extremely important because it helped to insure the safety of the officers and of the public around them. Officers were able to pat down the outside of the clothing of any suspect they felt could be armed. If the suspect was armed, he/she could harm the officers or any other citizen around. This was an important cautionary rule. This rule has grown to include the plain feel doctrine. The Terry pat down to feel for weapons, started to include drugs as society grew more aware of the drug culture. The plain feel doctrine is where an officer has conducted a legal Terry pat down and through their sense of touch, found a drug contraband (Hall, 2015). The officer would have to have belief that the suspect is armed and is performing an above the clothing pat down of the suspect. Once performing the pat down the officer uses their own well trained knowledge that they are touching contraband. In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the Supreme court ruled that evidence felt during a Terry pat down could be used to establish probable cause in order to retrieve the item, as long as the incriminating character of the evidence is obvious (Hall, 2015). I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. If the officer is performing a legal pat down, then they are legally allowed to find other things. I feel as though this is very similar to the plain sight doctrine. If an officer is performing a legal search with a legally valid warrant, then whatever they see in plain sight, can be used as evidence. The officer may not have had a search warrant for drugs, however if they see it in plain sight it can be used against the person. Officers have vast experience with finding such contraband and as such would be trained and able to know by sense of feel. I agree that while performing a Terry pat down that finding drugs would fall within the Terry doctrine.

Reply to Brina 75 words listed below

I do agree with this reasoning because it is becoming such a problem with the drugs. If a person of suspicion is seen around a school zone or anywhere for that matter they should be allowed to be searched for suspicion of them possibly being there to sell the drugs or pass them out to school students. "in justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." (Hall, D. 2015). For this reason I do agree with the reasoning of the doctrine. If an officer has a reason to believe that person has drugs or weapons in the Terry case then there is no reason why he should not be able to pat down a person on the outer layers of his or her clothing. The officer in the Terry case noticed that they were acting suspiciously so he acted in such a way to cause the officer to approach them. In Terry v. Ohio is when the law was made to accommodate "reasoning that the majority’s holding would grant powers to officers to authorize a search and seizure that even a magistrate would not possess." (Terry v. Ohio. n.d.). So yes I do agree with this reasoning because the drug issues that have been exploding across the nation in the past few years.