New Hampshire (1971) had mandated such. This case had tremendous effect on our criminal justice system in that it removed the inadvertence requirement from one of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. This requirement had called for a search warrant to specify the items that were to be searched for and seized, and anything else that was discovered had to be done inadvertently. Previously, the U.S. Supreme Court had held that in order for the police to seize evidence not mentioned in a warrant, they must find it inadvertently and it must be in plain view, which is required by the plain view doctrine. The plain view doctrine is the rule that says a law enforcement officer may make a search and seizure without obtaining a search warrant if evidence of criminal activity or the product of a crime can be seen without entry or search. However, in Horton v. California the Court argued that the inadvertence requirement was unnecessary and that the other warrant requirements would prevent police abuse of the warrant, even though the Fourth Amendment requires the warrant to describe all items to be...
Furthermore, this decision granted police greater freedom for obtaining evidence, as long as they met the conditions imposed by the Constitution and the previous Supreme Court rulings.Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now