Horton v. California
| Horton v. California | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued February 21, 1990 Decided June 4, 1990 |
|
| Full case name | Terry Brice Horton v. California |
| Citations | 496 U.S. 128 (more)
110 S. Ct. 2301; 110 L. Ed. 2d 112; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2937; 58 U.S.L.W. 4694
|
| Prior history | In re Horton, No. H002749 (Cal. Ct. App. filed Feb. 14, 1983) pet. denied. |
| Holding | |
| 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. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures. The opinion clarified the plain view doctrine of the Court's Fourth Amendment analysis.
As he entered his garage, Erwin Wallaker was robbed of jewelry and cash by two men, one armed with a machine gun and one with a stun gun. Wallaker heard enough of the robbers conversation to identify Horton's voice. The police submitted a request for a warrant to search for both weapons and the proceeds of the robbery, but the magistrate who issued the warrant only authorized a search for the proceeds of the robbery. During the subsequent search, the police found weapons and other items which were not listed on the warrant. None of the stolen property was found.
Horton was charged with the robbery and moved to suppress the weapons as being illegally seized. The police officer, Sergeant LaRault, testified that he was looking for any evidence that would show that Horton had committed the robbery. The trial court, relying on a California Supreme Court case, North v. Superior Court, refused to suppress the weapons, and Horton was convicted. The California Court of Appeals affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court in a 7-2 vote affirming the judgment of the California Court of Appeals. He first noted that the Fourth Amendment protected property against both search and seizure. In Arizona v. Hicks (1987), the Court had determined that if an object was in "plain view", then it did not involve any expectation of privacy that would prevent it from being "searched" or "seized". The issue here was whether the Justice Stewart's opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) required that the plain view be inadvertent, with Justice Stevens noting that it was not binding precedent. First, the nature of the object being evidence must be readily apparent. A requirement for any warrantless seizure is that "the officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen, but he or she must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself."
...
Wikipedia