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 |
Case history | |
Prior | 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.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search