Top Law Schools

I get that in order for a warrantless seizure of an item in a home under the Plain View Doctrine to be valid, the entry into the home must be valid under a 4th Amendment analysis.

But lets say an officer is walking by a house and sees illicit drugs laying on a coffee table through a window (and let's assume he's not in the home's curtilege) and goes and knocks on the door and announces without a warrant. Let's also assume the person in the home is a complete idiot and opens the door and the officer sees the drugs on the table. With nothing else being said, is this enough to seize the drugs, or does there need to be consent/exigencies to actually enter the home before the officer can seize the drugs?

I guess I'm just trying to figure out if a "lawful entry" into the home is required under circumstances such as that. Our professor gave us a practice exam question similar to that and I'm not completely sure what the answer is.

I apologize for the stupid question...again.

If he knocked on the door and could see the drugs from the doorstep, there's a pretty good exigency circumstances analysis to be made for destruction of evidence.

Strictly speaking, he should go get a warrant before knocking on the door, but officer-created exigent circumstances is OK. See MacDonald and Kentucky v. King.

kalvano wrote:If he knocked on the door and could see the drugs from the doorstep, there's a pretty good exigency circumstances analysis to be made for destruction of evidence.

Strictly speaking, he should go get a warrant before knocking on the door, but officer-created exigent circumstances is OK. See MacDonald and Kentucky v. King.

Right, he should get the search warrant, but this was kind of an extreme example.

Thanks for the response!

i feel like destruction of evidence argument is always going to work when the shit is drugs

joobacca wrote:i feel like destruction of evidence argument is always going to work when the shit is drugs

They've specifically rejected the argument that drugs will continue to be sold creates exigent circumstances. But here, if he knows the cop saw, he just has to start flushing before Vic and the Strike Team can get there.

Would the reason for the officer knocking on the door be a factor ?

No, the court in MacDonald (which is a Circuit case, but SCOTUS relied on it pretty heavily and adopted most of it in Kentucky v. King) said that as long as you are knocking on the door legally, you're good. It doesn't matter if the officer creates the exigent circumstances.