Scribd
Upload
112 views2 pages

Horton V California

1) California police obtained a warrant to search Horton's home for proceeds of a robbery and found weapons in plain view instead. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that inadvertent discovery is not a necessary condition for warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view. 3) As long as the officer's search is confined to the terms of the warrant and the incriminating nature of the evidence is immediately apparent, seizure does not violate the 4th Amendment even if expected.

Uploaded by

Tintin Co
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
112 views2 pages

Horton V California

1) California police obtained a warrant to search Horton's home for proceeds of a robbery and found weapons in plain view instead. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that inadvertent discovery is not a necessary condition for warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view. 3) As long as the officer's search is confined to the terms of the warrant and the incriminating nature of the evidence is immediately apparent, seizure does not violate the 4th Amendment even if expected.

Uploaded by

Tintin Co
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

HORTON V CALIFORNIA

June 4, 1990 | Justice Stevens | Petition for Certiorari | Plain View Doctrine

PETITIONER: Horton
RESPONDENT: California SC

SUMMARY:
California police found probable cause to search Hortons home for the proceeds of a robbery and the robbers weapons.
The warrant issued only authorized a search for the proceeds. Upon execution, the police did not find the stolen property
but found the weapons in plain view and seized them. The officer admitted that the discovery was not inadvertent since
when he did the search, he was also interested in finding other evidence connecting Horton to the robbery. The weapons
were admitted in evidence and Horton was convicted. California CA affirmed.

DOCTRINE: The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view even though the
discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent. Although inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view
seizures, it is not a necessary condition.

FACTS:
1. Petitioner was suspected of committing robbery. California
police determined that there was probable cause to search his
home for the proceeds of the robbery and the weapons used.
The affidavit described the weapons and the proceeds but the
warrant issued only authorized a search for the proceeds,
specifically 3 rings.
2. During the search no rings were found but the weapons
were in plain view. The officer seized such weapons. The TC
refused to suppress the evidence and Horton was found guilty
of armed robbery. California CA affirmed.
3. SC allowed the certiorari because the California courts
interpretation of the plain view doctrine conflicts with the
view of other courts.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain
view is prohibited (by the 4
th
amendment
1
) if discovery of
the evidence was not inadvertent NO

RULING: AFFIRMED

RATIO:
1. A search compromises the individual interest in privacy; a
seizure deprives the individual of dominion over his or her
person or property. If an article is already in plain view,
neither its observation nor its seizure would involve any
invasion of privacy. (Arizona v Hicks)
2. Coolidge v New Hampshire (plain view alone is never
enough to justify a warrantles seizure and the discovery must
be inadvertent) is a binding precedent. BUT the second
limitation is controversial.
3. This Court held that in order for a warrantless seizureof an
object in plain view to be valid, 2 conditions must be satisfied
in addition to the essential predicate that the officer did not
violate the 4
th
Amendment in arriving at the place of the
search: 1) the objects incriminating character must be

1
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizure, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched,and the persons or
thigns to be seized.
immediately apparent; 2) the officer must have a lawful right
of access to the object itself
4. 1) evenhanded law enforcement is best achieved by
applying objective standards of conduct (the fact that an
officer expects to find an item should not invalidate the
seizure as long as the search is confined by the wararnts
terms); 2) the prohibition against general searches and
warrants is based on privacy concerns, which are not
implicated when an officer with a lawful right of access to an
item in plain view seizes it without a warrant
5. In this case, the scope of the search was not enlarged by the
omission of any reference to the weapons in the warrant. The
items seized were discovered during a lawful search
authorized by a valid warrant and it was immediately apparent
to the officer that they constituted incriminating evidence.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy