Explain the concept for admissibility of plain sight evidence.

Officer Baker immediately calls for an ambulance, and Officer Jones begins applying pressure to Bob’s wounds and tells him, “Hold on. Help is on the way.” Bob thinks he’s not going to make it and decides that he wants a clear conscience as he moves on to whatever comes next. He tells the officers everything about the guns—where he got them, for what they were going to be used, and with whom Bob was planning his criminal conspiracy to engage in domestic terror by attacking a local rally on LGBT rights the following weekend.

Officer Baker thinks that they should search the other buildings on the property for additional weapons, but Officer Jones doesn’t think they have probable cause to do so. Baker argues that exigent circumstances allow them to conduct a broader search, especially with the first crate of guns in plain view. They do a search of the barn and other buildings on the property, except the main house, and discover two more crates of weapons.

The EMTs ended up arriving in time, and Bob was saved. He now stands trial along with two of his co-conspirators for illegal weapons charges, conspiracy charges, and domestic terrorism charges.

Bob’s defense counsel plans to argue that the plain view doctrine didn’t apply to this case and that everything discovered subsequently should be tossed. Additionally, they plan to argue that because Bob wasn’t actually dying, his dying declaration to the police officers wasn’t valid.

address the following:

• Explain the concept for admissibility of plain sight evidence.
• What are the legal requirements for the officers to invoke a plain sight seizure?
• How does a dying declaration create an exigent circumstance in the context of this case?
• Do you believe the defendant’s arguments will be successful? Explain your reasoning.

Be sure to reference all sources using APA style.