Horton v. California (1989)
- Docket
- 88-7164
- Decided
- 1989-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain sight if the discovery of such evidence was not inadvertent? Conclusion: No. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a 7-2 majority, held that the seizure of evidence in plain view does not constitute the invasion of privacy that the Fourth Amendment is meant to prohibit. Once an officer has a warrant to search a suspect’s house, that officer may seize any obviously incriminating evidence that the officer finds in plain view. The Court also held that the “inadvertent” limitation does not limit the scope of the search further than the warrant itself does. In this case, since the warrant was specifically for the stolen property, the officer had to limit his search to the likely places where the property might be kept. Since the officer also had probable cause to believe that certain types of weapons were used in the commission of the crime, he could legally seize the weapons if they were found in the course of that search. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to obtain specific warrants from impartial judges and to limit their searches to the items described. He defines the “inadvertent” limitation much more narrowly. It applies only when the officer is legally in a location and did not anticipate the discovery of such evidence. Justice Thurgood Marshall joined in the dissent.