Horton v. California
- Decided
- June 4, 1990
- Docket
- 88-7164
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,923 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that seizure of plain-view items also requires officer to have lawful access to the items — United States v. James Elkins Carol Elkins, United States of America v. Carol Elkins James Elkins (2002)
- holding that no search for weapons could have taken place if the items named in the warrant had been found at the outset — Gonser v. State (2006)
- recognizing that there is no invasion of privacy when items in plain view are observed — Justice v. State (2002)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we revisit an issue that was considered, but not conclusively resolved, in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971): Whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent. We conclude that even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate “plain-view” seizures, it is not a necessary condition.
I
Cite this
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.