Horton v. California and the plain view doctrine's inadvertence requirement

Criminal Justice

Plainview Doctrine

In the case of Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the treasurer of the San Jose Coin Club, Erwin Wallaker, was robbed after returning from a coin club event. The attackers were said to be armed with a machine gun and a stun gun. Wallaker had been approached in his garage where he was stunned with the stun gun and then tied up and handcuffed. The attackers got away with his cash and jewelry. While investigating the armed robbery, Sergeant LaRault found probable cause to search Terry Horton's home for the stolen property and the weapons that were used in the crime. The warrant the officer obtained to search his home only specified that he was searching for stolen property. But when the officer executed the search warrant, he discovered the weapons that had been used in the robbery. The officer confiscated the weapons as well as a few other items that included clothing that had been described by the victim, a handcuff key, and an advertisement for the club's show. LaRault testified that in addition to looking for the stolen property that was listed in the warrant, he had also been looking for further evidence that would link the suspect to the robbery. He claimed that in making his discovery of the weapons it was deliberate and not inadvertent. The trial court admitted this evidence into the trial even though the warrant did not authorize the seizure of it. A jury convicted Horton of armed robbery and sentenced him to prison. Horton appealed the case to the California Court of Appeals where it was affirmed based upon the fact that the officer had testified that, while he was searching Horton's home for the stolen property, he was also interested in finding other evidence connecting Horton to the robbery and that the seized evidence was not discovered inadvertently.

Horton v. California, was argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on February 21, 1990 and decided on June 4, 1990. The court upheld the appellate courts decision saying that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit seizure of belongings not specifically listed in a warrant found in plain sight during a legal search for other items, even though the discovery was not inadvertent, even though Coolidgev. 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 looked for. 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.