In Plain Sight is a new three-part mini-series based on the true story of Lanarkshire detective William Muncie's quest to bring to justice notorious Scottish killer Peter Manuel.
Muncie first arrested Manuel in 1946 for housebreaking, but also successfully convicted him for a string of sexual assaults. Manuel vowed revenge. Released from prison in 1955, Manuel embarked on a two-year killing spree, claiming eight lives in the close-knit communities of South Lanarkshire. Manuel evaded capture for so long because he was unlike anything the local police had ever encountered: A murderer without any discernible motive whose victims were chosen at random. Muncie was the one man who had Manuel's measure and doggedly refused to give up until Manuel was brought to justice.
Runtime: 60 minutes
In Plain Sight - Plain view doctrine - Netflix
In the United States plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize, without a warrant, evidence and contraband that are found in plain view during a lawful observation. The doctrine is also regularly used by TSA Federal Government Officers while screening persons and property at U.S. airports. For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, the three-prong Horton test requires: the officer to be lawfully present at the place where the evidence can be plainly viewed, the officer to have a lawful right of access to the object, and the incriminating character of the object to be “immediately apparent.” In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), an officer was found to have acted unlawfully when the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers (the officer was present to investigate a shooting). The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing. In Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent, which had led to difficulties in defining “inadvertent discovery.”
In Plain Sight - See also - Netflix
Exigent circumstances RayMing Chang, Why the Plain View Doctrine Should Not Apply to Digital Evidence, 12 Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy 31 (Spring 2007)