Horton v. California

Last updated
Horton v. California
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 21, 1990
Decided June 4, 1990
Full case nameTerry Brice Horton v. California
Citations496 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
PriorIn 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
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
DissentBrennan, 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.

Contents

Background

As he entered his garage Erwin Wallaker was robbed [lower-alpha 1] of jewelry and cash by two men, one armed with a machine gun and one with a stun gun. [2] Wallaker heard enough of the robbers conversation to identify Horton's voice. [3] 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. [4] During the subsequent search, the police found weapons and other items which were not listed on the warrant. [5] [lower-alpha 2] None of the stolen property was found. [7]

Lower courts

Horton was charged with the robbery and moved to suppress the weapons as being illegally seized. [8] The police officer, Sergeant LaRault, testified that he was looking for any evidence that would show that Horton had committed the robbery. [9] The trial court, relying on a California Supreme Court case, North v. Superior Court, [10] [lower-alpha 3] refused to suppress the weapons, and Horton was convicted. [13] The California Court of Appeals affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. [14]

Opinion of the Court

Justice John P. Stevens, author of the majority opinion. US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens - 1976 official portrait.jpg
Justice John P. Stevens, author of the majority opinion.

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court in a 7–2 vote affirming the judgment of the California Court of Appeals. [15] He first noted that the Fourth Amendment protected property against both search and seizure. [16] In Arizona v. Hicks [17] (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". [18] The issue here was whether 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. [19] First, the nature of the object being evidence must be readily apparent. [20] 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." [21]

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., author of the dissenting opinion. US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan - 1976 official portrait.jpg
Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., author of the dissenting opinion.

Justice Stevens also looked at the dissent from Coolidge, where Justice White had said:

Let us suppose officers secure a warrant to search a house for a rifle. While staying well within the range of a rifle search, they discover two photographs of the murder victim, both in plain sight in the bedroom. Assume also that the discovery of the one photograph was inadvertent but finding the other was anticipated. The Court would permit the seizure of only one of the photographs. But in terms of the 'minor' peril to Fourth Amendment values there is surely no difference between these two photographs: the interference with possession is the same in each case and the officers' appraisal of the photograph they expected to see is no less reliable than their judgment about the other. And in both situations the actual inconvenience and danger to evidence remain identical if the officers must depart and secure a warrant. [22]

Justice Stevens stated that he preferred an objective test rather than a subjective test, and noted that every place that was searched was authorized to be searched under the warrant. [23]

Dissent

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented from the Court's opinion. He believed that Justice Stewart's opinion in Coolidge was the correct interpretation of the plain view doctrine. [24] [lower-alpha 4] Brennan noted that a warrantless search was per se unreasonable unless it met a warrant exception. [26] A warrant had to describe, with particularity, the items to be searched for and seized. [27] He believed that unless the discovery of the evidence in plain view was inadvertent, as Justice Stewart had outlined the doctrine in Coolidge, it would excuse officers who do not have a warrant that describes the items to be seized with the required particularity. [28]

Justice Brennan also believed that the majority's opinion only addressed the privacy issue of a person's property, and ignored the possessory issues. [29] He claimed that this could lead to pretext searches, which in his view should be suppressed. [30]

Subsequent developments

Expansion of plain view doctrine

Scholars immediately commented that the decision might be "one of the most functionally expansive decisions" reached that session. [31]

Computer searches

The use of the Horton plain view doctrine has had an unintended consequence in searches of electronically stored information (ESI), effectively turning searches of ESI into general searches. [32] [lower-alpha 5]

Notes

  1. ↑ Wallaker was the treasurer of the San Jose Coin Club [1]
  2. ↑ This included an Uzi, a .38-caliber revolver, and stun guns. [6]
  3. ↑ The California Supreme Court in North determined that a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the issue in Coolidge v. New Hampshire [11] was a plurality decision and not binding precedent. [12]
  4. ↑ Stewart outlined a three part test, that the "(1) the officers are lawfully in a position to observe the items, (2) the discovery of the items is 'inadvertent,' and (3) it is immediately apparent to the officers that the items are evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure." [25]
  5. ↑ Three federal circuits (1st, 3d, and 4th) allow this type of search. Two circuits (7th and 10th) have required that the discovery of evidence other than that being sought be inadvertent. Finally, the Ninth Circuit required the government to waive use of other evidence in order for a warrant to be issued, although they later relaxed the requirement to a guideline. [33]

Related Research Articles

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Search and seizure Police power to confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to a crime

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of reasonableness for searches of students conducted by public school officials in a school environment. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically its prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, applies to searches conducted by school officials. However, school officials do not need to have probable cause or obtain a warrant before searching a student. Instead, in order for a search to be justified, school officials must have reasonable suspicion that the student has violated either the law or school rules.

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6—3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The Wolf Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the Fourteenth Amendment in large part because the states which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection. However, because most of the states' rules proved to be ineffective in deterrence, the Court overruled Wolf in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). This landmark case made history as the exclusionary rule enforceable against the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the same extent that it applied against the federal government.

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law, in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.

In the United States, the plain view doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that allows an officer to seize evidence and contraband that are found in plain view during a lawful observation. The doctrine is also regularly used by TSA officers while screening persons and property at U.S. airports.

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984), was a 1983 case before the US Supreme Court determining whether a warrantless arrest violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception.

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States handed down in 1990. In the case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.

Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1973), is an in rem United States Supreme Court decision on First Amendment questions relating to the forfeiture of obscene material. By a 7–2 margin, the Court held that a seizure of the books was unconstitutional, since no hearing had been held on whether the books were obscene, and it reversed a Kansas Supreme Court decision that upheld the seizure.

Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961), full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials. The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler. It held that both Missouri's procedures for the seizure of allegedly obscene material and the execution of the warrant itself violated the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments' prohibitions on search and seizure without due process. Those violations, in turn, threatened the rights protected by the First Amendment.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court decision finding that a police demand of an individual to identify himself would convert a consensual stop to a Terry stop, whereas a mere request would not.

United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that decided that a warrantless arrest in public and consenting to a vehicle search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered 30 pounds (14 kg) of marijuana in the truck. At trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because the tip was unreliable, and officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 911 call was reliable, and that officers need not personally observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous 911 call.

Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960), was a United States Supreme Court case.

Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the US Supreme Court involving search and seizure. At issue was whether the Fourth Amendment's motor vehicle exception permits a police officer uninvited and without a warrant to enter private property, approach a house, and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house that is otherwise visible from off the property. In an 8–1 judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that the automobile exception does not apply to vehicles parked within the home or the curtilage of a private homeowner.

The "special needs" exception is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general requirement that government searches be supported by a warrant and probable cause. The exception applies when (1) the government conducts programmatic searches that are primarily aimed at advancing some special need other than criminal law enforcement, and (2) the government’s search program is reasonable given the balance of public and private interests.

Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision addressing search warrants and the Fourth Amendment. In this case, where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable."

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), was decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that limited which claims of Fourth Amendment violations could be made by state prisoners in habeas corpus petitions in federal courts. Specifically, a claim that the exclusionary rule had been broken would be barred if state courts had already given it a full and fair hearing. The decision combined two cases that were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day with similar issues, one filed by Lloyd Powell and the other, titled Wolff v. Rice, filed by David Rice.

References

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

  1. ↑ John A. Mack, Note: Horton v. California: The Plain View Doctrine Loses Its Inadvertency, 24 J. Marshall L. Rev. 891, 894 (1991).
  2. ↑ Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 130 (1990); Michael A. Cretacci, Supreme Court Case Briefs in Criminal Procedure 183 (2008); B. J. George, Jr., United States Supreme Court 1989-1990 Term: Criminal Law Decisions, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 479, 492 (1990).
  3. ↑ Cretacci, at 183.
  4. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 130-31; Cretacci, at 183; John N. Ferdico, Henry Fradella, & Christopher Totten, Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional 437 (2015); George, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. at 492.
  5. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 131; Ferdico, at 437.
  6. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 131; Cretacci, at 183; George, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. at 492.
  7. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 131; Ferdico, at 437.
  8. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 131; George, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. at 492.
  9. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 131; Cretacci, at 183; Ferdico, at 437.
  10. ↑ North v. Superior Court, 502 P.2d 1305 (Cal. 1972).
  11. ↑ Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
  12. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 131.
  13. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 131; Cretacci, at 183; George, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. at 492.
  14. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 131; George, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. at 492.
  15. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 142; George, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. at 492.
  16. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 133.
  17. ↑ Arizona v. Hicks , 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
  18. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 133.
  19. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 136.
  20. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 136; Ferdico, at 177.
  21. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 137; Ferdico, at 177; George, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. at 494.
  22. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 139 (citing Coolidge, 403 U.S. at 516 (White, J., dissenting)); see also George, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. at 493 n.70.
  23. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 138, 142; Cretacci, at 184; George, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. at 492.
  24. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 142 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
  25. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 142 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
  26. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 143-44 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
  27. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 144 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
  28. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 144-45 (Brennan, J., dissenting); see e.g. Catherine T. Clarke, Fifth Circuit Symposium: Criminal Law and Procedure, 36 Loy. L. Rev. 753 (1990) (noting that the majority rejected J. Brennan's position).
  29. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 147 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
  30. ↑ Horton, 496 U.S. at 147 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
  31. ↑ George, 35 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. at 490-91.
  32. ↑ Ferdico, at 177.
  33. ↑ Ferdico, at 178.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.