Skip to main content
Law

Return to Answer

added 1 character in body
Source Link
Dale M ♦
Dale M ♦
  • 226.6k
  • 17
  • 262
  • 519

Yes and No

See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967):

What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

The glass has clearly been "knowingly exposed" and if that glass was, on the normal methods of examination by the officer (sight, smell etc.), evidence of a crime then it would be able to be used as evidence. However, any DNA on that glass is not "knowingly exploded"exposed" - finding the DNA requires a laboratory, specialised equipment and trained technicians.

Yes and No

See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967):

What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

The glass has clearly been "knowingly exposed" and if that glass was on the normal methods of examination by the officer (sight, smell etc.) evidence of a crime then it would be able to be used as evidence. However, any DNA on that glass is not "knowingly exploded" - finding the DNA requires a laboratory, specialised equipment and trained technicians.

Yes and No

See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967):

What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

The glass has clearly been "knowingly exposed" and if that glass was, on the normal methods of examination by the officer (sight, smell etc.), evidence of a crime then it would be able to be used as evidence. However, any DNA on that glass is not "knowingly exposed" - finding the DNA requires a laboratory, specialised equipment and trained technicians.

Source Link
Dale M ♦
Dale M ♦
  • 226.6k
  • 17
  • 262
  • 519

Yes and No

See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967):

What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

The glass has clearly been "knowingly exposed" and if that glass was on the normal methods of examination by the officer (sight, smell etc.) evidence of a crime then it would be able to be used as evidence. However, any DNA on that glass is not "knowingly exploded" - finding the DNA requires a laboratory, specialised equipment and trained technicians.