Horton v. California
Citation and Court
496 U.S. 128 (1990) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
A police officer obtained a warrant to search Horton’s home for the proceeds of a robbery. The affidavit supporting the warrant mentioned both the stolen property and weapons used in the robbery, but the warrant itself only authorized the seizure of stolen proceeds. During the search, officers found weapons in plain view and seized them. Horton argued the seizure was improper because (1) the discovery was not “inadvertent” as some courts required, and (2) weapons were not covered by the warrant.
Issue
Does the plain-view doctrine require that the officer’s discovery of evidence in plain view be “inadvertent” in order for seizure to be permissible?
Holding
No; the plain-view doctrine does not require that discovery of the evidence be inadvertent; so long as the officer lawfully occupies the position from which the item is observed and has probable cause to believe it is evidence of a crime, the officer may seize it.
Rule / Doctrine
For a valid plain-view seizure: (1) the officer must be lawfully in a position from which to view the object, (2) the incriminating character of the object must be immediately apparent (probable cause), and (3) the officer must have a lawful right of access. There is no additional requirement that the discovery be inadvertent, overruling that portion of Coolidge v. New Hampshire.
Significance
Horton clarifies the plain-view doctrine by eliminating the inadvertence requirement that had been proposed in the Coolidge plurality. This simplification gives officers more flexibility to seize items they expected to find when serving warrants, as long as the other plain-view requirements are met.