According to The Fourth Amendment that a person has the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, (Del Carmen, R., 2014)." The issue is does this apply to an object in plain view or an open field search and if the fourth amendment offers protection. In regards to United States v. Oliver, and California v. Greenwood that deals with the matter if an individual has a reasonable expectancy of privacy in regards to an object in plain view or an open field as stated in the fourth amendment.
The Purpose of a Search and Seizure .
Evidence search serves the objective of identifying the existence and place of evidence; searches consist of checking the location with the purpose of discovering criminal evidence. The purpose of an evidence seizure is to collect evidence to use in the criminal prosecution of a defendant, which is a method of taking in to custody the crimes evidence. The nature of a search constitutes an interference of a person's right to privacy, as well as, a constitutional condition against any unreasonable search and seizure. When there is a violation by law enforcement of constitutional protection, then the action would be inadmissibility in court for any evidence that was obtained.
Four Categories Subject to Search and Seizure.
Observational evidence is when an officer hears, sees or smells something for instance, a suspicious individual is observed by an officer looking in car windows while holding a baseball bat in the middle of the night.
Circumstantial evidence is when there is collection of the facts and when it is put all together indicates that a crime in fact was committed, but it is not considered direct evidence.
An officer can use their knowledge and expertise to gather any evidence such as depicting gang graffiti which can determine the criminal activity that has taken place.
An officer can obtain information through various methods, such as, receives a call over the radio by dispatch or confidential informant.